Slashdot Mirror


Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Global Oil Industry (theage.com.au)

Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker, Michael Bachelard, and Daniel Quinlan report on a widespread corruption in the global oil industry for The Huffington Post: In the list of the world's great companies, Unaoil is nowhere to be seen. But for the best part of the past two decades, the family business from Monaco has systematically corrupted the global oil industry, distributing many millions of dollars worth of bribes on behalf of corporate behemoths including Samsung, Rolls-Royce, Halliburton and Australia's own Leighton Holdings. A massive leak of confidential documents has for the first time exposed the true extent of corruption within the oil industry, implicating dozens of leading companies, bureaucrats and politicians in a sophisticated global web of bribery and graft. After a six-month investigation across two continents, Fairfax Media and The Huffington Post can reveal that billions of dollars of government contracts were awarded as the direct result of bribes paid on behalf of firms including British icon Rolls-Royce, US giant Halliburton, Australia's Leighton Holdings and Korean heavyweights Samsung and Hyundai.

204 comments

  1. Shocking! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Big oil is corrupt?! I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Shocking! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shut the fuck up! Oil is Jesus juice! God loves oil! Do not ever question oil. It is holy beyond all other things. God wants us to burn it. The mighty Koch Brothers have decreed it, and they are billionaires, which makes them better than everyone else. If I were in charge, I would outlaw alternative energies, execute all climatologists, and all skeptics would be given a million dollars and a dozen 19 year old hookers as reward for promoting the use of completely harmless hydrocarbons for energy production.

      Oil is good, alternatives are evil and a sign of Satan. You wouldn't wan tot be on the side of Satan by questioning the righteousness of oil companies, would you?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Shocking! by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here's your oil stock dividends, Captain Renault....

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Shocking! by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. This would never, ever happen to solar-panel manufacturers — nor any other government-sponsored industry.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      skeptics would be given a million dollars and a dozen 19 year old hookers

      Oh thank god. I can't tell you how skeptical I am.

    5. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no way, say it ain't so!

    6. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Institutions that are the major state-run industry of the most authoritarian and least free countries in the world? Corrupt? You don't say!

      (And before you go making snarky comparisons to the US, Europe, etc. We get it. Ha ha ha. Way to go internet edgelord with that stinging social commentary. We aren't perfect but we're whole worlds away from the institutionalized corruption that is the system of government in said places)

      There really isn't a line between business and criminal enterprise in these places.. And the companies that do business with them play the game. Including the western ones.

      Of course, it's no coincidence that this is coming out now. In the US we've decided that our interest no longer lie in looking the other way.. And that the low price of oil quite conveniently serves our interests by harming our political and economic enemies.

    7. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say it ain't so! Who would have thunk! Big oil is corrupt! Whatever is next? Pi trascendental?

    8. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, that was my post, word for word, but clearly, you beat me to it.

      So I have no other recourse but to rationalize this away...therefore: you MUST have way too much time on your hands, which is why you were first to the punch, and
      I am FAR too busy to get first posts in.

      So there's the rationalization...uh, I mean, explanation.

      Ah much better...

    9. Re:Shocking! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      You sure like making stuff up don't you.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    10. Re:Shocking! by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      bitter sarcasm much?
      comes from tasting too much sour grapes. best not to be a loser ... always.

    11. Re:Shocking! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      ...and all skeptics would be given a million dollars and a dozen 19 year old hookers as reward for promoting the use of completely harmless hydrocarbons for energy production.

      Hmm.....

      /me raises a hand and says "I'm a skeptic...and for an extra million, I"ll create plenty of good video and other promotional media proving how good oil is for us!!"

      Hey...c'mon, everyone has their price!!

      ;)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Shocking! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Institutions that are the major state-run industry of the most authoritarian and least free countries in the world?

      I think you may have that backwards. At least in the case of the US, the oil industry isn't state run. The state is run by the oil industry.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pics or it didn’t happen.

    14. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That case was more just a boring run of the mill fraud like Enron. Not actually a corrupt conspiracy, just executives overstating earnings and pulling accounting tricks hoping that things would get better so they could cover their tracks.

    15. Re:Shocking! by sycodon · · Score: 2
      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    16. Re:Shocking! by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Big (Insert Industry Here) is corrupt? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    17. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly what I was going to write if I got first post!

    18. Re:Shocking! by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Only thing shocking is they put it in plain text in emails.

    19. Re:Shocking! by sdinfoserv · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean "Shell Shocked" , don't you?

    20. Re:Shocking! by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Solyndra

      More like this. And, yeah, it is true — if Politifact would not flat-out deny it, you can be certain, it is true.

      But the point was not to blame a particular industry — only to remind, that any case of government bureaucrats either spending taxpayers' money or being in a position to allow or disallow something is fertile ground for corruption. Which, of course, leads to the immediate conclusion, that the fewer there are of such situations, the better.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    21. Re:Shocking! by mrbester · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you a dozen 19 year old hookers I can be at least twice as skeptical as you...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    22. Re:Shocking! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Indeed, Just ask Frank Spencer

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:Shocking! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I'm not clear. What is your problem? Surely you don't think using sacred holy fossil fuels to create energy is bad, do you? You're not one of those evil disgusting Commie greenies are you? I'm sure you and I both agree that the AGW crowd should have a gun put to their heads and it politely explained to them that oil is just wonderful. Right?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re:Shocking! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Big oil is corrupt?! I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

      I could hardly believe it myself!

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    25. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big anything is corrupt. Also a huge surprise.

      But it is interesting that of the companies listed only one of them (Halliburton) is particularly oil focused, because it provides technical services for drilling and measuring geological properties in oil wells. The rest of them are ordinary industrial or service companies involved in building ships or running them, industrial control systems, engines, and all sorts of other stuff, heavy on the "infrastructure" side of things. All this article is revealing is the fact that all of these companies will offer bribes to [insert large business that's not necessarily an oil company here] in order to get expensive contracts, especially in the highly corrupt Middle East. There's not much here that is specific to the oil and gas business rather than the Middle East happening to have many large oil companies. I suspect that if you had a similar cache of documents from, say, major shipbuilding companies or military suppliers you'd find exactly the same thing going on.

    26. Re:Shocking! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      This would never, ever happen to solar-panel manufacturers

      There ya go! Proof that they're owned by the oil industry!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    27. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish everyone would stop picking on the world's richest people. If it wasn't for them I would still be driving a Pinto. I for one am glad to have a raised 4x4 pickup with a rebel flag and a shotgun in the back window.

    28. Re:Shocking! by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Or anything 'us' apparently. Countries listed are 'our enemies'. I suspect another analyst would highlight different aspects in the leaked emails,

      The leaked files expose as corrupt two Iraqi oil ministers, a fixer linked to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, senior officials from Libya’s Gaddafi regime, Iranian oil figures, powerful officials in the United Arab Emirates and a Kuwaiti operator known as “the big cheese”.

    29. Re:Shocking! by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now if anyone of note actually goes to jail, then I actually will be shocked.

      I won't be holding my breath.

    30. Re:Shocking! by davesays · · Score: 2

      Indeed! I was about to post that I was shocked 76 ways (66 if you're east of the Rockies). Then I realized this was probably the 'Standard' all along. Sent from my 'Mobil.' I'll just e making my 'Exxit.'

    31. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah this kindve proves it, in interested to see the remaining articles.

      A dump would be nice too.

    32. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh good, go tell that to the Chinese who manipulated their currency to flood the market and drive out American competition like Solyndra...oh right ya'll have not a clue about what really happened....neener neener if politifact doesn't say it's false it's true...except that they SAY IT'S FALSE YOU TWIT. Read the damned link you posted.

    33. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only ones in these countries that will go to jail are the ones who didn't share some of the take with those higher up in the food chain.

    34. Re: Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol China manipulated the I currency to affect 0.01% of exports. That is totally plausible

    35. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is more like:
      "Third world countries are corrupt? I'm shocked!"

      How many of you actually expected Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran NOT to be corrupt?

    36. Re:Shocking! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Skeptics of AGW are blessed by God, who loves oil. God would never allow burning of carbon-based fuels to increase CO2 levels, and God would never allow CO2 to alter surface temperatures. Why are you upset? I'm just repeating what you believe, right? That fossil fuels have absolutely no downside, and it is impossible for CO2 to alter climate.

      Oh I get it, it's because you think I'm a secret AGW supporter. I'm not. I'm a fucking idiot,. just like you.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    37. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. It wasn't leaked to Wikileaks. I wonder why.

      Pfffft, no, I don't.

    38. Re:Shocking! by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unfortunately to reflect the true reality of the nature of the corrupt individuals involved you statement should have read "I'll bet you a dozen 14 year old hookers, male or female", they really are that sick and that is exactly how the ensure the control of the politicians they buy. This with the backing of the corrupted espionage/military industrial complex, the core of which now appears to reside in NATO over which the US government had largely lost control, they were doing pretty much what ever they felt like be purposefully feeding false information up the line and striving to create chaos and conflict. Once the scandal truly breaks, oh my, will the current line up of the rich and famous shrink.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    39. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are lubricated, you tell us, lubricated! Being shocked is reserved for the news about electric industry.

    40. Re:Shocking! by Livius · · Score: 1

      I find it remarkable how I really knew nothing about these players beforehand and yet how unsurprised I am.

    41. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. What did the gov't sponsor in that succeeded? Tesla. Right. So we have a simple conclusion: gov't loans are like all VC...90% of your investments are going to fail. The "market" doesn't magically fix shit -- that's just the invisible handwave you think you're talking about. VCs lose money all the time.

      So people should stop picking on Solyndra -- it makes the person look like a short-sighted dumbass.

    42. Re:Shocking! by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      your sour grapes sarcastic comments indicate you are irrational, bitter, impotent, frustrated. probably due to a life long habit of losing at everything.
      if my comments indicate i am an idiot. so be it.

      be even more bitter in reply!

       

    43. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote for Trump! He'll fix that.

    44. Re: Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol back atcha--that's not what he said, which was "to drive out American competition *like Solyndra*". Y'know, "like" as in "such as", "similar to", or "for example".

      Grow a clue, twit.

    45. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming "our" means "American", I wasn't aware that the US considered either the UAE or Kuwait "enemies".

    46. Re:Shocking! by RuffMasterD · · Score: 2

      Pretty much. Iranian billionaire Babak Zanjani was sentenced to death last month for corruption and embezzlement. He helped Iran circumvent international sanctions by selling oil via a complex web of companies while Ahmadinejad was running the country. Didn't seem to bother anyone in Iran at the time. Now the new government claims he owes them $1.9bn in oil money. I guess he didn't pay the right people. There are others of course, so the new cart^H^H^H^H government is sending a strong message.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    47. Re:Shocking! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It's the hookers that er hooked you, isn't it ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    48. Re:Shocking! by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      I am Donald Trump and I approve this message.

    49. Re:Shocking! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      At least in the case of the US, the oil industry isn't state run.

      Officially. Unofficially, well, let's just say hookers and blow can outright purchase representation. So from that aspect, yeah, what difference doest it make?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    50. Re:Shocking! by rhazz · · Score: 1

      More like this [youtu.be]. And, yeah, it is true [politifact.com] — if Politifact would not flat-out deny it, you can be certain, it is true.

      Did you even read your poiltifact link? The last line in the article is: "We rate this ad's claim Mostly False."

    51. Re:Shocking! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Your mistake is to think that government involvement is a factor.

      Anywhere money changes hands is fertile grounds for corruption, the larger the sums - the more fertile the ground. Government is not immune to this - but neither is it more susceptible than any other organisation which signs contracts. No. Really. It isn't.

      The only thing the libertarian small government idea achieves is an explosion in private corruption - because among the first things to go when a government is made smaller is those divisions that exist to prevent that.

      In either version the guy at the bottom gets screwed - but in the big government version they can often get screwed a great deal less because unlike a business a government is accountable to voters - not share-holders. This is why the "big government" economies of Northern Europe works exceptionally well. And why corruption in them is exceptionally low - yet companies from those countries are regularly caught in corruption scandals in other countries.

      In fact, on the contrary, the statistics belie even your original "justified by nothing but what I think is common sense" claim: the most corrupt governments in the world today are also among the smallest. If anything -the exact opposite seems to be true - the larger a government is, the harder it becomes to hide conspiracies and corruption. Small governments that have represent a very tiny portion of GDP must by definition also have fewer checks and balances (since those make a government bigger by existing) - and simply by employing less people, as a simple matter of mathematical fact the number of potential whistleblowers and actual dedicated civil servants are reduced as well, and those have zero impact below a certain threshold. Larger governments have enough people that simple statistics ensure some of them will be in the right place to stop the most egregious abuses in time.

      You can look at South Africa right now - where the very corrupt president today basically got nailed in the constitutional court and ordered to pay back taxpayer money used to enhance his private homestead and disguised as "security upgrades". The path that led to this victory for the rule of law in the court began almost 2 years ago with a report by the Public Protector's office. One of those kinds of divisions in a government that you can only have if the government is big enough to have offices which are not required (and indeed specifically exempted) from reporting to parliament or the cabinet on it's activities and has constitutionally guaranteed independence (so no other organs of state can dictate to them how to spend their resources). It's a libertarian worst nightmare for such an instittution to exist and be funded with taxpayer money.
      But this institution exists for the sole purpose of investigating possible corruption or wrong-doing in other organs of state (all of them - including the police and military), collect evidence, and then file public reports which all voters get to read - and it's recommendations have rule of law. If criminal conduct is found - then the police and prosecutors are *required* to charge those named - if she finds funds are owed back, then even the president is required to pay it (as the court today confirmed) and, in fact, failing to do so counts as dereliction of the duties of his office, which is pretty solid grounds for parliament to impeach him (which may yet happen).

      Big government is a requirement for something you guys never seem to appreciate the value off: competing interests. The more competing interests you have in one government, the less likely and less egregious corruption becomes - because there is always somebody with a lot to gain by exposing your bad behavior.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    52. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing the Rockefellers just dumped their holdings in oil. I'm sure this had nothing to do with it and they only had the environment in mind.

    53. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except the loan program not only made money for the government while advancing a fledgling industry, it rocked a 97% success rate.
      now compare that to a typical private venture capital firm operates considers a 30% success rate to be successful, as that's typically whats needed to be profitable.

      oh but im sure youll still remind us how this is somehow tyranny.

    54. Re:Shocking! by mi · · Score: 1

      The last line in the article is: "We rate this ad's claim Mostly False."

      "Mostly". They could not flat-out reject it, as I said. Which, given their adoration for Illiberalism in general and Obama in particular, confirms, it is true.

      If you choose to reply, be sure to state unambiguously:

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    55. Re:Shocking! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      +1 Casablanca reference

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    56. Re:Shocking! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      what weird bizarro world do you live in that up is down and false is true?

      Our ruling

        Solyndra's story is unfinished. FBI and congressional investigations continue, and more information about the loan guarantee program may yet come to light.

        The TV ad says "(President Barack Obama gave) half a billion in taxpayer money to help his friends at Solyndra, a business the White House knew was on the path to bankruptcy." Some of this is correct, while some isn't supported by the existing evidence.

        First, the money wasn't Obama's to give. Solyndra's request predated his administration, and career Energy Department officials handled the deal.

        Second, e-mails so far don't show an administration pushing through a loan to help Obama's "friends at Solyndra." Rather, it appears the administration asked the Energy Department officials to hurry the regular process, so the administration could burnish its stimulus efforts.

        Third, while e-mails raised doubts about Solyndra's liquidity as the Energy Department finalized the loan, those questions were answered by an official who argued investors would step in to protect the project — red flags, yes. But awareness in the White House the company would dissolve? No.

        The government wasn't the only blindsided investor — private investors put up far more, and stand to lose more, than taxpayers.

      The Solyndra story might be one of the poor design of the Energy Department's loan guarantee program — something the Government Accountability Office has pointed out since 2008. And with the congressional investigation ongoing, we may learn more about the Obama administration's role in the loan program — perhaps better supporting the ad's claims. For now, though, information in the public record does not support the ad's claim that the Obama White House is a pay-to-play cash machine for the politically well-connected. We rate this ad's claim Mostly False.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    57. Re:Shocking! by mi · · Score: 1

      Anywhere money changes hands is fertile grounds for corruption, the larger the sums - the more fertile the ground. Government is not immune to this

      Government is especially prone to it, because the bureaucrats never spend their own money. The second point is, I don't particularly care about somebody else's money being misspent — but the taxes are my money. Confiscated from me at the implicit gunpoint.

      Larger governments have enough people that simple statistics ensure some of them will be in the right place to stop the most egregious abuses in time.

      So, should we expand the government further, in your opinion?

      The more competing interests you have in one government, the less likely and less egregious corruption becomes

      This is a very peculiar kind of nonsense, most original, I'll grant you that. So, you think it is good that government departments compete with each other? How about military branches?

      there is always somebody with a lot to gain by exposing your bad behavior.

      Nonsense! You can always buy a whistle-blower off — he'll never be paid more, than he can make by joining your racket. Conscience is still required — but people with conscience able to resist even several millions are rare...

      And then there is a whole different class of people — honest fools. A VC making several investments as bad as Solyndra has no funds left to make another folly — but no one in the Department of Energy has lost their job over the fiasco. They weren't corrupt in the usual meaning of the term.

      No, a far safer way of keeping the government clean is by reducing the amounts of money at their disposal . Instead of the captive taxpayers debating the merits of a particular investment, how about it is left to willing investors? The way Capitalism is supposed to work?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    58. Re:Shocking! by mi · · Score: 1

      Solyndra's story is unfinished.

      The scandal is 5 years old now. If they haven't updated the article, it can only be because they can not help Obama and Democrats any further.

      Solyndra's request predated his administration, and career Energy Department officials handled the deal.

      Sure, sure. And the career government officials know, what their bosses want — or else the said careers end abruptly... Know without being told — but they may have been.

      "Predates" my muscular tail — the company spent over half a million dollars on lobbying alone in 2010. You (and Politifact) would've screamed bloody murder if such appearance of impropriety happened between 2001 and 2008...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    59. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MightyMartion - OK douchebag. I don't see you or your cohorts ditching your auto's. In fact, I'd bet my life savings that most of you would be unemployed without fuel.

      Oh no, almighty computer warrior... You're part of the problem just like everyone else. Asshole...

    60. Re:Shocking! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      More to the point.
      "We will conclude the three-part investigation by showing how corrupt practices have extended deep into Asia and Africa."
      Doing business in Asia and Africa involves bribes? Shocking I tell you.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    61. Re:Shocking! by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      funny rant but the simple truth is that.
      1. There is no real alternative for oil in many areas. Oil is used for transportation, solar and wind are used for electrical production.
      2. Oil is not the biggest problem when it comes to CO2. Coal is the real problem.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    62. Re:Shocking! by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      but the taxes are my money.

      After they have it, it's not your money anymore.

      Confiscated from me at the implicit gunpoint.

      Confiscated? really? It's your "responsibility" as a citizen to pay them. With "rights" comes "responsibilities" and it seems like to me you're being just a selfish jerk who wants all the rights without any responisbility. Sounds like that OTHER expat from Eastern Europe....Ayn Rand. Go back to the Ukraine tovarysch. You had this vision of america thanks to propaganda that wasn't the real america and now you're espousing the philosophy of basically wanting to fuck everyone else over out of selfishness.

      Sometimes government NEEDS to jump start things. Industry, Rural electrification, transportation, communications. Government loans and subsidies for Solar is part of that. It's looking towards the future and preparing for it.

    63. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think these questions make you sound smart?

      They said mostly false because it was only mostly false rather than all false.
      IE, ya they contributed to Obama. They also contributed to Bush, and McCain, and Hillary.
      Clue (cause you need one): companies contribute to everyone.

      The broader point that the claim tried to make, and the same point that you are trying to make, ie corruption, was and is false.

      The decision was still made outside of their control by career bureaucrats, as was every other loan under the program, most of which returned successfully.

      And no I don't support such lobbying.
      Not many people here do.
      but you do, and have argued against regulations controlling such behavior before, so dont even try now pretend that all of a sudden you care when it convenient for you and the BS point you try to make.

    64. Re:Shocking! by tmjva · · Score: 1

      Revelation 6:6 ?

      "A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine."

      South of France eh? Wonder if their tendrils are also corrupting the wine industry?

      Muaahahahahaaaa!

      --
      Tracy Johnson
      Old fashioned text games hosted below:
      http://empire.openmpe.com/
      BT
    65. Re:Shocking! by rhazz · · Score: 1

      I think politifact does a much better job debunking the claims of corruption than I could, and since you referenced it I'll assume you don't have a problem with the information. For your reference, here is the different ratings that Politifact gives, and what they actually mean.

      TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
      MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
      HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
      MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. (in this case, the "different impression" is that there was nothing unusual going on)
      FALSE – The statement is not accurate.
      PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.


      As to your statements... all are perfectly normal things in your electoral system. The fact that your system works like that is perhaps corruption itself, but none of that makes any of the claims in the ad true.

  2. other citations by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:other citations by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      I get wanting to avoid HuffPo, but Daily Mail is about as bad, just on the other end of the political spectrum and without even trying to pretend that they are helping.

    2. Re:other citations by Aighearach · · Score: 3

      Why would you be averse to Huffington Post when they're the ones who did the reporting?

      Seems a bit irrational.

      It is one thing to prefer wire news from a particular source... or to avoid the story entirely because you don't trust the investigative reporters. But to prefer to hear it second hand is... insane. Does it become more truthy if your friend repeats it to you?

      The linked article from The Age who is the other investigator than Huffington Post, and the Huffington Post links to that article too as the "full investigation."

      See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    3. Re:other citations by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Same reason certain people call one source "Faux News".

      When people get reporting they don't like, they tend to dismiss the source.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:other citations by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Why would you be averse to Huffington Post when they're the ones who did the reporting?

      Well, the HuffPo is pretty well known for having a leftist, liberal slant to most of their stories...in both choice of subject and type of coverage.

      Much the same as in how Fox News tips a bit to the right.

      With either, if you find a source more centrist, it adds to the authenticity of the story as published.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:other citations by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      Those are not other citations.

      a) The Sydney Morning Herald and Stuff are published by Fairfax Media, who are the co-authors with The Huffington Post of the cited report.
      b) The Daily Mail cites only the Sydney Morning Herald.

      All 5 of those articles cite only the same report. They are not separate.

    6. Re:other citations by skegg · · Score: 1

      Good pick-up ... this appears to be mostly a Fairfax story.
      I've noticed Fairfax has collaborated with HuffPo the last couple of years, so this may be considered a "collaborative" effort for the purposes of gaining HuffPo's global reach.

      But back to the main story ... clearly the rules around lobbyists need to be locked-down much, much more.

      Australia's federal government has a lobbyist register but from what I can see there's no penalty (financial, custodial) if one doesn't register. Not good enough.

      Secondly, any and all meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be published in a very timely fashion. (No more than a month later.) None of this:

      Lobbyists are required to update their details as they change and to confirm that their details are up to date within 10 business days of 31 January each year. Lobbyists are also required to confirm that their details are up to date and provide statutory declarations for all persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities on behalf of a client within 10 business days of 30 June each year.

      from here

      And if you really want to laugh, read this:

      24. What will happen if a lobbyist fails to confirm that his or her details are up to date as required by clauses 5.5 and 5.6 of the Code?
      [...] A lobbyist who does not confirm that his or her details are up to date within the period specified in clauses 5.5 and 5.6 may be removed from the Register. [...]

      Right ...

    7. Re:other citations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure there might not be another reason, like maybe one news source lies more frequently than the others?

    8. Re:other citations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Much the same as in how Fox News tips a bit to the right.

      OMG, you are soooo funny!

    9. Re:other citations by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Politicfact is leftwing And talking heads aren't "News" But here is an example of Politicfact doing its own "Pants on Fire" (the rating given to Ann Coulter)

      Ann Coulter

      Says South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley "is an immigrant."

      Please note, this is SARCASM/Humor. Something most people don't get about Ann, especially the left. Is it true she said this? Yes, Is it true, that it is a lie, in the strictest sense it isn't true. In context, it isn't even remotely accurate that Ann believes it, or that she expects her audience to believe it.

      On the other hand, you have Fox news actually reporting things that OTHER stations simply avoid. Which is why you should get your news from more than one source, and should include sources you don't agree with. Well, you better not, after all, you might end up changing your mind, and closed minds don't like that.

      And you can use Politifact to dismiss the actual Reporting all you want, it only proves my point. ;-)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:other citations by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Why would you be averse to Huffington Post when they're the ones who did the reporting?

      Seems a bit irrational.

      It is one thing to prefer wire news from a particular source... or to avoid the story entirely because you don't trust the investigative reporters. But to prefer to hear it second hand is... insane.

      Not really. HuffPo does some good reporting but they also do bad. Their worst stuff was posting really whacky and dangerous BS like the whole anti-vaxx nonsense. But even on politics they post articles suggesting that Bernie Sanders is winning the Democratic primary when the vast majority of expert analysis suggests it's almost impossible for him to come back.

      The fact is that HuffPo will post articles completely out of step with overwhelming expert consensus and seriously misleads its readers to promote its world view.

      Now that doesn't mean everything they do is wrong, but you need to be really cautious when HuffPo who hates big business and big oil posts an article claiming that the global oil industry is completely corrupt. It's exactly the thing I'd expect them to potentially exaggerate and take out of context.

      Now HuffPo might be giving us a completely accurate account of the scandal and its implication, but I'm going to wait until more trustworthy news sources have started digging into it before I start using this article to update my world view. At the very least I'll see what other news sources think of HuffPo's reporting to see if it passes the smell test.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re:other citations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a censored version of the truth at best. Fox has a dismal track record with truth. The way they alter graphs, selectively quote Obama, pick their own facts - in this sense, they are in a league of their own. MSNBC is not much better and neither is CNN. But to claim that Fox is not in a league of their own is not very honest.
      If you are serious about fact checking, take a look at BBC and Al Jazeera; their version of what's going on in the world and how much it matters differs vastly from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

    12. Re:other citations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good pick-up ... this appears to be mostly a Fairfax story.
      I've noticed Fairfax has collaborated with HuffPo the last couple of years, so this may be considered a "collaborative" effort for the purposes of gaining HuffPo's global reach.

      But back to the main story ... clearly the rules around lobbyists need to be locked-down much, much more.

      Australia's federal government has a lobbyist register but from what I can see there's no penalty (financial, custodial) if one doesn't register. Not good enough.

      Secondly, any and all meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be published in a very timely fashion. (No more than a month later.) None of this:

      Lobbyists are required to update their details as they change and to confirm that their details are up to date within 10 business days of 31 January each year. Lobbyists are also required to confirm that their details are up to date and provide statutory declarations for all persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities on behalf of a client within 10 business days of 30 June each year.

      from here

      And if you really want to laugh, read this:

      24. What will happen if a lobbyist fails to confirm that his or her details are up to date as required by clauses 5.5 and 5.6 of the Code?
      [...] A lobbyist who does not confirm that his or her details are up to date within the period specified in clauses 5.5 and 5.6 may be removed from the Register. [...]

      Right ...

      From what I understand, it is the politicians who are at risk of punishments for communicating with unregistered lobbyists. Charges of corruption (possible fines and imprisonment) and loss of their jobs are some of the potential risks they face by communicating with unregistered lobbyists. On a similar note, there has been a recent scandal in NSW regarding prohibited donors and the current state government. They have had 4.4 million dollars in campaign funding rescinded due to this breach.
      http://www.smh.com.au/comment/mike-bairds-frankenstein-moment-commission-turns-on-the-nsw-liberals-over-donations-scandal-20160323-gnq08v

    13. Re:other citations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When the source has a well established history of outright fabrication - it's wise to dismiss it.
      When it doesn't, and it is providing highly credible source material to back up it's claims - then dismissing it is a matter of biass.

      Now if there was a rightwing news site of which the latter is true, you could point fingers at liberals who dismiss it - but I'm not aware of any. Hell Breitbart has actually had senior reporters resign in recent months because they objected to the fact that the site apparently took bribes from Donald Trump to report favorably on him.

      Oh, I found a somewhat leftleaning source with the same level of scrutiny, factual correctness and trustworthiness of Fox... what do you... here it is: http://www.theonion.com.

    14. Re:other citations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Others just dismiss the reality.

    15. Re:other citations by dywolf · · Score: 1

      That is such absolute bull.

      No, Ann Coulter is not a walking piece of performance art.
      No, it is not just humor.

      Whether she actually believes the racist c*** she says is irrelevant.
      She profits from saying it, from people who believe both what she says is true and that she is serious when she does so.

      And no, they are not leftwing, or biased, any more than reality is.
      What people to stop getting rated liar?
      Then tell them to stop lying.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:other citations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a news source repeatedly lies to you, and verifiable so, not paying attention to it is called "having discernment", which is also known as "good judgment".

    17. Re:other citations by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      You act as if Fox News is the only "news" organization that is selective in quoting people, and "altering" facts. It is just that the others do it to support progressive politics, and so it gets a pass.

      Want an example? The black guy open carrying a rifle at a conservative event, selectively edited, and then presented as "Racist Conservative carries rifle" (or that was the theme at least". It is done all the time. Or when 500 or so liberals are protesting ... "Massive Protest ...", but when a half million Conservatives ....

      You see, it isn't always the lies you tell, it is the lies you tell by not actually saying anything.Example, where is the MSM coverage of Hillary Email Scandal? You can't tell me that if this was a Republican it wouldn't be blasted daily on the front page of the NYT, and played on every show that pretends to be "comedy" news every evening.

      It is embarrassing how stupid liberals actually are.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Here is another "peaceful anti-Trump" protester ..
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Here is how stupid people have become. ...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    18. Re:other citations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Clinton hasn't won a single precinct in the last five states, and has effectively given up WI and CA to campaign harder in NY (which is also polling drastically in favor of Sanders). And the lead she had nationally has been closed and surpassed, as Sanders is now considered the frontrunner. That sure sounds like winning to me. Math is your friend :)

    19. Re:other citations by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      All your opinions and true to Liberal form. Only humor allowed is Progressive Humor. And if a conservative called a Sarah Silverman (a talentless hack of a comedian) a C*** , you'd be calling them a Misogynist woman hater.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:other citations by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You two are not using "C***" to mean the same thing, BTW. Claiming that someone says racist crap is not misogyny, or even a personal insult, and Michael seems to have unangelically and ungrammatically assumed a different meaning.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Only climate deniers should be upset by CajunArson · · Score: 0

    If any of this stuff is true, then obviously it makes extracting oil and selling it more expensive. In turn, that makes the price of gas higher than it should be and encourages people to reduce their carbon footprints.

    Consequently, only an anti-science climate denier could possibly have any problem with any of this.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re: Only climate deniers should be upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm a climate denier. I emphatically deny the existence of any climate on this or any other world.

  4. Captain, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my Captain Obvious.

    1. Re: Captain, by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Whereever there has been power in human history, it has been for sale.

      I know, let's give more people more power to fix that!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by clonehappy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As usual.

    The headline should read Widespread Corruption in Humans.

    Find me one group of powerful people, be it ANY industry, ANY government, ALL of academia, ALL banking/financial, whatever sector you want to pick, one place where multiple people have stood to gain through backroom deals and collusion where is hasn't/doesn't consistently happen.

    Humans work to benefit their own ends, Film at 11.

    1. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What exactly is your point?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, everyone is benefiting from the backroom deals but, technically, the businessmen involved are working to increase profit for the companies and so are effectively also doing their jobs. You might argue immorality on their part but not really corruption.

      Those accepting bribes in exchange for political favour are not doing their jobs of representing the people (unless they made some rather unusual campaign promises). The politicians are corrupt.

      The more accurate story is "Widespread Corruption in Governments" but this isn't news.

    3. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by ADRA · · Score: 1

      And your solution is what, Nihilism? "Don't take my stuff, oh you're going to? Then I'll just lay down and take it then."

      --
      Bye!
    4. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Nah, not nihilism. I'm not really sure what you call how I feel these days, but I've been fighting and screaming about corruption and collusion for so long and have really seen how deep and wide it goes, so much that HuffPo screaming bloody murder about corruption in the big mean oil companies makes me feel like I'm a kid watching Captain Planet and obsessing over someone littering or not recycling.

      Journalists could expose real corruption and real "conspiracies", but that would be dangerous and they'd have to risk something to print it. A nice, safe story about oil companies is about as risque as wearing a bikini on Miami Beach.

    5. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      I think it's along the lines of, *Nothing to see here, move along*. And really, what is the point of reporting this stuff if voters keep on reelecting the same politicians who take the bribes anyway?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in many of these places, the people taking the bribes aren't elected, so there isn't much for their citizens to do other than revolt. Once they do, it will just end up being someone else taking bribes to "speed things along".

    7. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Solution is easy, test for psychopathy and exclude them from all positions of control, governance or influence. In the mean time, wasn't a cashless society meant to stop crime but surely they were not sneaking around with crates of cash, so cashless in reality made it easier for them. So who are the real culprits, who really facilitates crime and corruption, who are the real money handlers and changers, why of course the 'TAX HAVENS', time to declare economic war, real harsh vindictive and economy crippling war. Those tax havens need to be destroyed for the crime against humanity they have actively facilitated.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Nah, not nihilism. I'm not really sure what you call how I feel these days, but I've been fighting and screaming about corruption and collusion for so long and have really seen how deep and wide it goes

      Wins happen. The Jimmy Saville stuff eventually came out after decades of it being hidden.

    9. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I never said oversight was easy, just necessary.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >, everyone is benefiting from the backroom deals
      No, we are not.

    11. Re:Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalism by JakartaDean · · Score: 1

      Nah, not nihilism. I'm not really sure what you call how I feel these days, but I've been fighting and screaming about corruption and collusion for so long and have really seen how deep and wide it goes, so much that HuffPo screaming bloody murder about corruption in the big mean oil companies makes me feel like I'm a kid watching Captain Planet and obsessing over someone littering or not recycling.

      Journalists could expose real corruption and real "conspiracies", but that would be dangerous and they'd have to risk something to print it. A nice, safe story about oil companies is about as risque as wearing a bikini on Miami Beach.

      I'm guessing -- no I'm certain -- that you didn't RTFA, because from your posts you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. To avoid your further embarrassment, I'll just point out that this article originated with Fairfax Media, where their journalist was contacted by an anonymous insider. He travelled to several countries, risking his safety perhaps, in a classic example of old school investigative journalism. He exposed real corruption -- that is exactly the fucking point of the article.

      As to real corruption, I lived and worked in Indonesia for 24 years. If you know more than I do about corruption please feel free to inform us all. Otherwise you'd be better off if you STFU.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
  6. bribery go-between by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It looks like the company (Unaoil) is acting as a "bribery go-between," when oil companies want to drill in oil-rich countries, they contract out the necessary bribery to Unaoil.

    Is it really necessary to bribe officials in oil-rich countries?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:bribery go-between by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Yeah, think about it... look how much effort Saudi Arabia is putting into maintaining market share. Price isn't everything.

      It isn't enough to walk to the gas station and make a purchase. If you're a big user, you need to arrange deliveries far in advance, and the current spot price isn't that important. Companies like Halliburton are military suppliers. You don't just sign a contract with whoever has the lowest rate, you also have to worry about if they will be able to fulfill their promises. So there are legitimate reasons why it would be necessary for this to be done contractually, and for governments to be involved; after all they are often the final recipient. That sets the stage for corruption to determine which finalist actually gets the contract.

    2. Re:bribery go-between by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bribes in some countries are required "business expenses". They are required, because to not include them prevents deals. The fact that the US outlaws this practice doesn't stop those countries from expecting it. It is how you get it soccer in Qatar (Thanks FIFA!) Pay enough tot he right people, and shit gets done.

      Which is pretty much the opposite of the US, where you pay government huge amounts of money to have shit stopped up and prevented, we call them Campaign Contributions, or donations to ExPresidents (and presidential candidate) "Foundation" and they are perfectly legal .

      Why do we act shocked? Because we're simply ignorant of how the real world actually works.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:bribery go-between by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 0

      But big oil bribes are more eviler than all those run of the mill everyday "not big oil" bribes.

    4. Re:bribery go-between by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is pretty much the opposite of the US, where you pay government huge amounts of money to have shit stopped up and prevented, we call them Campaign Contributions, or donations to ExPresidents (and presidential candidate) "Foundation" and they are perfectly legal .

      I was under the impression that the way it worked in the US, was elected officials chocked stuff up, and then solicited bribes^H campaign contributions to get things unchocked again. Therefore it makes sense that the US would outlaw foreign campaign contributions^H^H bribes; they don't want that filthy lucre flowing offshore instead of into their own pockets^H campaign funds.

    5. Re:bribery go-between by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little confused. The summary says "oil industry", but there's only one company on this list with a substantial oil-related business.

      "Samsung, Rolls-Royce, Halliburton, Hyundai and Leighton Holdings"

      Where are the oil company majors? Where's Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon Mobile, Saudi Aramco, Petrobras, Petronas?

    6. Re:bribery go-between by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Pretty much all business activity in the second and third world involves bribing government officials. It's so pervasive that it's no surprise that an abstracted and streamlined bribery services business would develop.

    7. Re:bribery go-between by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are very likely suppliers to the oil industry (for equipment)

    8. Re:bribery go-between by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Given that some of them went to the guys that fund ISIL/Daash maybe they are.
      Corruption does suck in general, there has been a lot coming out recently about child molesters being protected at a very high level due to systemic corruption in governments, media, all over the place - also very much fitting the description of evil.

    9. Re:bribery go-between by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Qatar bribed FIFA. We're both talking about the same FIFA here, right? Otherwise point well made.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    10. Re:bribery go-between by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bribes in some countries are required "business expenses".

      The difference is that in the USA and much of Europe you pay a bribe to get an official to look the other way while you do something illegal, in much of the rest of the world (like India or Russia) you have to pay bribes just to get people to keep doing the damn job they were already being paid to do to begin with.

    11. Re:bribery go-between by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bribes in some countries are required "business expenses". They are required, because to not include them prevents deals. The fact that the US outlaws this practice doesn't stop those countries from expecting it. It is how you get it soccer in Qatar (Thanks FIFA!) Pay enough tot he right people, and shit gets done.

      Which is pretty much the opposite of the US, where you pay government huge amounts of money to have shit stopped up and prevented, we call them Campaign Contributions, or donations to ExPresidents (and presidential candidate) "Foundation" and they are perfectly legal .

      Why do we act shocked? Because we're simply ignorant of how the real world actually works.

      That's pretty accurate. Other countries actually consider it ethical. In Chinese and Taiwanese culture, it's called guanxi which doesn't really translate effectively into English. But basically it's considered ethical in Chinese business culture to steer contracts to your family members and friends and in return they are to provide you gifts and presents; this is considered taking care of your network and community and the morally right thing to do. They in fact view the US system, which removes the human relationship component so as not to create bribery situations, as unethical and immoral.

  7. This is news how? by sehlat · · Score: 2

    Teapot Dome

    The Teapot Dome scandal was a bribery incident that took place in the United States from 1921 to 1922, during the administration of President Warren G. Harding. Secretary of the Interior Albert Bacon Fall had leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and two other locations in California to private oil companies at low rates without competitive bidding. In 1922 and 1923, the leases became the subject of a sensational investigation by Senator Thomas J. Walsh. Fall was later convicted of accepting bribes from the oil companies and became the first Cabinet member to go to prison. No person was ever convicted of paying a bribe, however.

    1. Re:This is news how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well now that was more surprising than it should have been..

    2. Re:This is news how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WTF. Does not compute.

      "In 1929, Albert Fall was found guilty of accepting bribes from Doheny. Conversely, in 1930, Edward L. Doheny was acquitted of paying bribes to Fall. Further, Doheny's corporation foreclosed on Fall's home in Tularosa Basin, New Mexico, because of "unpaid loans" which turned out to be that same $100,000 bribe."

    3. Re:This is news how? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Because this isn't even the same decade as that stuff, and is unrelated.

      The word "news" that you ask about... it is stuff that is new. That is why it is news. Teapot Dome? That is olds. Also known as history.

    4. Re:This is news how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a tempest in a teapot is it then?

    5. Re:This is news how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a time it was actually a toss-up between two candidates, but Frederick Blametaker had to withdraw due to a prior engagement.

    6. Re:This is news how? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I think the OP intended it to be taken as something along the lines of, "Bribery? This is nothing new... [classic example]".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  8. Keep in mind by axewolf · · Score: 2

    What are bribes really?

    I propose a definition: They are various sorts of financial transactions that society lacks the concrete mechanism to define.

    They are supported and accepted by society as a whole, especially by those high in the hierarchy.
    But why is the concrete mechanism of definition lacking?
    Is there a lack of academic resources to create such a mechanism in accordance with the other mechanisms of financial transaction?
    No, it is not the cost of the academic resources that is prohibitive, it is the cost of having such a mechanism in the open.

    Take this opportunity to soak in the fact that the economy is completely fixed. Bribes are a sign of information that is vital to economic function being withheld from the public.

    Presently there is no opportunity for hard work, creativity, and vision to pay off in a lasting way on their own. There is no freedom in this world without united awareness of this fact of the current circumstances.
    But there used to be, and there could be.

    Now scoff at this, forget about it, and go back to your labor, slave.

    1. Re:Keep in mind by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      We have a lot of meaningless political words. Corruption and Bribery are somewhere in the gray wastes: these are real things, but the words aren't exactly fixed. Patriotism, freedom, liberty, and rights are actually wholly meaningless, pretty much name-dropped when someone wants to label something as good or bad (usually when they have no concrete argument other than that it's something they want).

      Meaningless dialogue comes up regardless of any real merit of argument: even privacy rights arguments, which have solid and definite importance behind them, sort of wargarble about rights and handwave a bunch of smoke and mirrors in most discussions. That's why you get people screaming that a service which reports back what applications they install is invading their privacy in a Microsoft OS (which supplies patches for those softwares!), yet completely ignoring that `apt-get upgrade` generates piles of httpd logs telling the server admins your IP address and what software you installed. Then they go send all their e-mail through gmail. You'd think it'd be easy for someone to hide major abuses in all the noise....

    2. Re:Keep in mind by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Bribery is well defined, the problem is that in many countries what we would consider bribes are legalized therefore no longer bribes legally speaking (you can't go to jail for giving/receiving them).

      They are similar to 16th century pirates or 20th century war crimes; it is illegal as long as it is not your country doing it.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Keep in mind by JimFive · · Score: 2

      Of course bribes can be defined. A bribe is a payment to a functionary to encourage them to do their job in a way that is favorable to you. (See TIP). This is distinct from licensing fees, etc, in that the bribe is paid to an individual as an individual while a fee is paid to a company or government division. In addition, bribes are ad hoc while fees are contractual or defined by law.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    4. Re:Keep in mind by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Financial or other types of inducements that invite a person in a position of authority to abuse their lawful or fiduciary obligations in return for special treatment or favors.

      If you're on trial and I give your lawyer $100,000 to deliberately undermine your case, I have committed bribery. If I go to a county or municipal building inspector and hand him the keys to a new Rolls Royce in return for him rubber stamping a building I'm constructing, that is a bribe. If I give a government procurement agent a million dollars to assure that I win the bidding on a government contract, that is a bribe.

      You will notice that in all these cases the act involves the inducement an individual to compromise their legal or fiduciary duty, not to mention that others are directly harmed. In the first case, you, as the defendant, are very seriously harmed by your lawyer taking the bribe and screwing you over. In the second and third cases, it involves suborning a public official who has a legal duty to act only in the best interests of the state (and by extension, society as a whole).

      You are certainly free to try to tell a judge that bribery has no real meaning, but I can assure you, it does, and your defense would amount to little more than standing up and going "DUHHHHHH..."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Re: Disingenuous HuffPo Trash passing as journalis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We are all human. Everyone has flaws. The more money and power you wield, the larger and wider the effects of your actions.

  10. Daily Mail [Re:other citations] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Yeah-- I though about whether to not include them, but figured there was a benefit in the parallax of sources, even if the Daily Mail is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  11. OPEC by NotInHere · · Score: 3

    its a cartel, and even wikipedia knows it.

    1. Re:OPEC by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I doubt if that is the same issue. A cartel is a form of monopoly. That's independent of bribery issues . One could almost say it makes bribery superfluous.
      Finally, it's clear that OPEC is currently not functioning as a cartel, with the Saudis dumping their oil.

    2. Re:OPEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the saudis are NOT dumping their oil. They are simply outputing at the level that OPEC agreed to sometime ago. The problem is that russia and venezuela, and iraq, and iran, and America are all pumping at much much higher levels and opec is not adjusting.

    3. Re:OPEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes. It's never made any secret of that - people have been quite openly calling it a 'cartel' any time these 35 years, in my hearing at least.

      But that's not against any relevant law.

      Bribery, on the other hand - generally is.

  12. Dick Cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...US giant Halliburton...

    Not surprised. Dick Cheney was behind W pulling the strings and starting wars. Even shot a "friend" in the face!

  13. You mean the Iranian Revolution was justified? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who could have guessed?

    1. Re:You mean the Iranian Revolution was justified? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the wrong people ended up running the place some time soon after.
      See Cuba and Tsarist Russia for other examples.

  14. Sounds like a "facilitator" company by dj245 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not surprised at all. To play in most Middle East countries requires a local company and a physical office. This can be hard to set up for foreigners due to local law. Certain countries basically require kickbacks and bribes to get anything done. Legitimate companies often get around both of these issues by partnering with a "facilitator" company.

    The Facilitator company will sometimes act as the agent (sales representative) for the legitimate company, collecting a commission on goods and services sold. The commission may be deliberately higher than normal in order to have the cash to pay whoever needs to be paid. This can be discovered by examining the commission amount/percentage and comparing it to other parts of the world for similar services. The foreign company can be held responsible if it knew, or should have known, that something fishy was going on.

    Another way to do the same thing is to retain such a company for consulting services. Looking at contract deliverables and the contract amount usually gives an indication if the consulting services are legitimate or a cover for something else. Again, the foreign company can be held responsible if they knew, or should have known that something was up.

    Yet another way to do the same thing is to subcontract to one of these facilitating companies. The facilitating company then marks up the price to whatever they need in order to pay their sales staff, pay bribes, or negotiate legal hurdles. The customer's contract is between the customer and the facilitating company, and the foreign company never sees it. Done right, the foreign company has no idea what the final customer price is, or if it was reasonable, etc. This is the best way to protect a foreign company since any improper or illegal actions that the facilitating company takes fall solely on the facilitating company. The facilitating company can also accept contract provisions that a foreign company could not legally accept (Israeli goods boycott, as an example). The foreign company never has the information required to see that something was amiss, so proving that they "knew or should have known" is substantially harder.

    One last thing to keep in mind is that certain types of payments are actually legal. Generally, you can pay someone to "hurry up" and complete something that is included in their official duties, and which they would have done for you anyway without the payment. If the payment is just to expedite something that would have happened anyway, it is not considered a bribe, even if it is paid directly to an individual. The prime example of this is paying a customs officer to release cargo which has all the correct paperwork. The officer would have done this anyway, eventually. The payment is just to expedite the legal and inevitable action.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:Sounds like a "facilitator" company by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 2

      I hadn't realized facilitator companies existed, but, after it's explained, their presence seems like an obvious necessity of doing business in a country with a large degree of corruption. Now I'm really more intrigued and curious about the economic implications to this news than I am shocked in any way.

      I wonder how the size of the bribe is decided. It would pretty much have to be what the market would bear, wouldn't it? So, not enough to raise eyebrows from other sources or cause the briber to take their business elsewhere instead, but as much as you can get away with. And is the incidence of bribery correlatable with how laissez-faire and unregulated an economy is? Directly or inversely? Does it act as an inflationary force, deflationary force, or does it instead react to inflation/deflation?

      As someone who has never paid or been paid a bribe, I'm really curious about how they fit into the larger picture of an economy.

    2. Re:Sounds like a "facilitator" company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hadn't realized facilitator companies existed, but, after it's explained, their presence seems like an obvious necessity of doing business in a country with a large degree of corruption. Now I'm really more intrigued and curious about the economic implications to this news than I am shocked in any way.

      I wonder how the size of the bribe is decided. It would pretty much have to be what the market would bear, wouldn't it? So, not enough to raise eyebrows from other sources or cause the briber to take their business elsewhere instead, but as much as you can get away with. And is the incidence of bribery correlatable with how laissez-faire and unregulated an economy is? Directly or inversely? Does it act as an inflationary force, deflationary force, or does it instead react to inflation/deflation?

      As someone who has never paid or been paid a bribe, I'm really curious about how they fit into the larger picture of an economy.

      I've been part of several, largely penny-ante stuff but a few larger. I hate them, but they are a necessary part of doing business in some parts of the world. In Indonesia in the 90s, the going rate was typically 10% of the contract value for consulting work, but it could be negotiated if, say, out-of-pocket costs were a big chunk of the contract value. That 10% figure was remarkably common. You didn't get preferential treatment for that fee; anyone who won the competitive bidding process would be expected to pay, and foreigners paid the same or less than locals. After Soeharto was forced to step down there was a bit of a free-for-all, as bureaucrats were afraid the "goose who laid the golden egg" was leaving the station, and they wanted to get as much as possible before that happened. She never left, and things pretty came back to normal.

      After around 2004, the game shifted somewhat, so that the elites in business, judiciary, executive and legislative circled their wagons and it became progressively harder for foreigners to work there. There is always a trade-off between economic growth and protecting established businesses, and it seemed nobody cared much for growth. There has been a lot of progress in law enforcement, with the Corruption Eradication Commission bringing hundreds of charges against politicians, executive officials and businesspeople, but that's just a drop in the bucket of a horribly corrupt society.

      I left last year, and although I miss many friends and have many fond memories, it's just too hard a place to do business with your morals intact.

  15. Are you surprised by the following headlines? by irrational_design · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Global Oil Industry
    Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Government
    Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Major Corporation
    Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Academic Research
    Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Some Church
    Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Scientific Community
    Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in HOA
    Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Any Human Organization

    1. Re: Are you surprised by the following headlines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See?! It's the emails, it has always been the emails... It's rhe conspiracy of the emails.

    2. Re:Are you surprised by the following headlines? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in HOA

      Woah, woah, HOAs are the epitome of justice and high human ideals. They do no wrong.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Are you surprised by the following headlines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, No, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, respectively.

    4. Re:Are you surprised by the following headlines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you comrade for pushing talking point number 1:

      "This aint so bad, because other industries do it"

      We will share other talking points with you when this is rebutted - remember to spread them on as many forums as possible,

      -Your Masters, the Oil industry.

    5. Re:Are you surprised by the following headlines? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Global Oil Industry Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Government Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Major Corporation Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Academic Research Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Some Church Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Scientific Community Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in HOA Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Any Human Organization

      Headlines you never see
      Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Hell

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  16. Re:Of course! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    You do know, don't you, that the Koch Brothers have spent millions trying to bring down Trump.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  17. The dull surprise is almost overwhelming! by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure if I'll be able to concentrate after being THIS gobsmacked...

    Fuck. This is like saying "Water is wet." or "Fire is hot." or "Politicians are full of shit."

    It's pretty much a given. Like gravity.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:The dull surprise is almost overwhelming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that's precisely what the oil industry is relying on: your contempt of them. Since you're already used to the fact that they're corrupt, they get to live with it and keep making $$$. Not like you're going to do anything about it because you're already treating it like a fact of life.

    2. Re:The dull surprise is almost overwhelming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      gravity is just a theory man

    3. Re:The dull surprise is almost overwhelming! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Go jump off a building and tell me that.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  18. Just Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just Imagine what is going on with US Tax dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan - the exact same thing. Notice the same Halliburton? Remember the no bid contracts the enriched Cheney and CO and still continue today?

    This type of bribery is rampant in the US government, which is intimately tied to the US Oil industry through revolving door jobs, think tanks, and the constant back and forth between Public service and For-profit Oil industry.

    Since everyone is bought out and implicated, no one is ever charged with taking or accepting bribes.

  19. Gov wants $$ = Big Oil corruption? by zerosomething · · Score: 1

    So the articles are very light on details so I could have this very wrong but it appears it's the various governments that want the companies to pay them something to do business in their countries? Not sure that really equates to big oil corruption but like I said the article, as per HuffPo standard, is kind of light on details but I might have missed something.

    --
    It all starts at 0
  20. Re:Of course! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,”

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  21. Re:Of course! by wyHunter · · Score: 0

    Shhh, you're going against the lefty playbook of the vast rightwing conspiracy.

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Revealing what we already know? by Quzak · · Score: 1

    Seriously, we have known this since at least the 60's. So better late then never?...I guess

    --
    Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
  24. One character to get answesr from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ben Ghazi.

  25. Non-deductible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darn, and in the US, we can't even deduct those bribes!

  26. Industrial or State? by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    Was this industrial espionage or state espionage that leaked it? Or a disgruntled employee?

    We've had a few seemingly random leaks of criminal conspiracies since NSA spying got big... information you couldn't use in court if it came directly from a government action.

  27. But we have to give them tax breaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    because they're JOB CREATORS!

  28. Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I am quite aware that the koch bros feel that Trump has taken their toys and are mad that he is playing with them

    This lefty is really enjoying watching the gopers rip apart their own entrails, just because the vast right-wing conspiracy is falling down around their feet in now way means that it does not exist

    silly gopers

  29. Of course they'd NEVER... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use this pattern for negotiation, uh, death squads.

    Blackwater and Xe are just for security.

  30. And the winner is? by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who at the time referenced in the leaked documents was CEO of Halliburton. Oh, he is also a war criminal.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:And the winner is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      The earliest date mentioned in the article was 2002. Cheney was VPOTUS by then and not CEO of Halliburton. You are an oxygen thief.

    2. Re:And the winner is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cheney was VPOTUS by then and not CEO of Halliburton"
      Considering that Cheney was instrumental in the decision to invade Iraq, I hardly consider that an exoneration.
      Do you imagine oil was not a consideration in that invasion or that there was no chance that Cheney's former cronies would stand to benefit in any way?

    3. Re:And the winner is? by bjwest · · Score: 1

      Yes, 2002 was when the corruption started. Must've been because Cheney left.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    4. Re:And the winner is? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      He had more free time. Before this, he was occupied with multiple wars as well as enhancing spying on the American public.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:And the winner is? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      yet oddly they kept paying him even after he was VP.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:And the winner is? by whitroth · · Score: 1

      The poster you're responding to was incorrect. HOWEVER, from 2001 THROUGH 2005, Cheney was receiving his golden parachute from Halliburton, *while* he was there when Halliburton got its no-bid contracts for Iraq. Maybe you're too young to remember the first year or so, where the US troops there were *literally* not getting enough water every day, due to "insurance issues" for Halliburton and its subsidiaries (who were doing it, instead of the Quartermaster Corps).

      So, yes, he was being paid by them.

                        mark

    7. Re:And the winner is? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Since then, someone else has taken up the slack. And then some.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  31. No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My late relative used to work for Tidewater for 45 years. He developed the actual oil recovery methods prevalent amongst the industry today used over 90% of the earth. To his credit, he was the scientist that developed the oil-eating bacteria. He had several patents that he was taken to court over... for nearly 20 YEARS for the sole purpose of robbing him of them. He was in court so long that the patents in question then expired, taking away the ability to collect royalties on them and the companies involved developed patents eerily similar to his to bypass him .

    After all said and done, the judge determined the lawyers were so corrupt / bribed, he had the lit of them disbarred and banned for life from pracicing law.

    My relative wanted only $1 per barrrl for royalties. He would of been the world's 1st Trillionair :(

    To say the industry is corrupt based only this email release, is a staggeringly small drop in the bucket of the scale of how much evdence is really there and already available, just that jyst about every media organization government controlling oil rights is blatently ignoring the writing on the wall. Just be glad this story wasn't silenced

  32. Can I... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can I haz 35 y/o hookers?

    There's no substitute for experience, I'm tellin ya. :)

  33. Cut it OUT with the Capt. Renault attitude by rbrander · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if everybody had the attitude of "well, this is a screwed-up world we live in, what can you do, (nothing), let's turn to the sports" about everything?

    "King George wants us to suffer taxation without representation, surprise, surprise, well, duh." - there'd be no America.

    "Big deal, this stuff happens, no need for major efforts to change" was the attitude of all those Bishops and Cardinals to kids getting buggered.

    We SHOULD react with shock and disgust to lying and fraud in the financial industry, to corruption in oil, to military vendors promoting war; we should tell our politicians they're unemployed unless they act and can have all the money they need to sic 10,000 FBI agents on them.

    The S&L crisis in the 80's prompted the assignment of 1000 FBI agents to the case. They brought in about one conviction each: 1000 convictions, a 90% success rate, after winnowing down 30,000 referrals to 1100-odd trials. It brought about real results.

    By contrast, the 2008 crisis prompted no such effort despite being 70X as large a set of frauds.

    We can tackle these large problems; you just put out the same effort you'd put into a new highway interchange or skyscraper: $100M budget per year and a few thousand people working on it. The US Justice System has nearly one million employees; only 2300 on white-collar crime.

    1. Re:Cut it OUT with the Capt. Renault attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boring, not one sports analogy!

    2. Re:Cut it OUT with the Capt. Renault attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is being worked on in the form of AI. As you have illustrated, human beings are incapable of being fair and honest with one another. So, we will let computers manage us instead.

    3. Re:Cut it OUT with the Capt. Renault attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real difference is this: in 1980 the average CEO earned about 180% the salary of the average worker, today for many American CEO's it's over 1000 times the salary of the average worker. Inequality has zero real upsides, and the bigger it gets the worse the problems get. One of those problems is a de facto aristocracy and any aristocracy is *always* de facto above the law. The bigger the gap becomes, the worse the problem gets. Of course what keeps them above the law is bribery and corruption - so inequality exacerbates that as well, by creating an ever large pool of corrupt payments to keep corrupt rich people out of trouble.

      The less consequences they face, they more corrupt they become, the more corrupt they become - the more bribes they have to pay to avoid consequences, the more bribes they pay the more corrupt the state becomes - which induces the businesses to become more corrupt... and you get a vicious circle.

      Historically that downward spiral can only have one conclusion. The one we saw in Russia in 1910 and France 1789 and countless others before. The difference is - the last two times, the rich lost. Prior to that they had mostly been able to squash revolts. That trend is well and truly over.

      Captcha: Suffrage

    4. Re:Cut it OUT with the Capt. Renault attitude by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      What if everybody had the attitude of "well, this is a screwed-up world we live in, what can you do, (nothing), let's turn to the sports" about everything?

      "King George wants us to suffer taxation without representation, surprise, surprise, well, duh." - there'd be no America.

      "Big deal, this stuff happens, no need for major efforts to change" was the attitude of all those Bishops and Cardinals to kids getting buggered.

      We SHOULD react with shock and disgust to lying and fraud in the financial industry, to corruption in oil, to military vendors promoting war; we should tell our politicians they're unemployed unless they act and can have all the money they need to sic 10,000 FBI agents on them.

      The S&L crisis in the 80's prompted the assignment of 1000 FBI agents to the case. They brought in about one conviction each: 1000 convictions, a 90% success rate, after winnowing down 30,000 referrals to 1100-odd trials. It brought about real results.

      By contrast, the 2008 crisis prompted no such effort despite being 70X as large a set of frauds.

      We can tackle these large problems; you just put out the same effort you'd put into a new highway interchange or skyscraper: $100M budget per year and a few thousand people working on it. The US Justice System has nearly one million employees; only 2300 on white-collar crime.

      Capt. Citroen:

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  34. Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  35. Where can I get a torrent of them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anybody point to a download site for the emails?

  36. theage.com.au is... by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

    ...robbing my computer of CPU cycles!

  37. No bribes no business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When competing against companies that do pay bribes you have to at least match them or you won't get the business (a principled stand will kill your industry). Large chinese corporates actual do training on how to do bribery and prostitution as sales tools (I have friends with first hand experience) - it is part of their culture. So Sinopec (possibly with active govt help) won't be so constrained in making deals in 3rd world. Western law should stop hamstringing western companies.

  38. Fun Facts by prof_robinson · · Score: 0

    There are only two US oil companies. They control less than 10% of the global oil market. They are the only private oil companies in the world. All the rest of the oil companies on the planet - and all the ones mentioned in this report - are state-owned, essentially socialist, enterprises. This isn't the "corruption of Big Oil", this is the corruption of crony-capitalist, government interference in the market.

    1. Re:Fun Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you assume large corporations somehow have a nationality? nationality is just a label. Just like religion is. It just keeps people in line.

  39. Meh by tsotha · · Score: 1

    I can't get to excited over this. There are a whole lot of countries in the world in which bribing public officials is expected, and if you don't you'll never do business there.

  40. Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > vast right-wing conspiracy
    that includes a large part of ther dems too.

  41. About that representation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there was representation, government would be 1/10 the size it is today, measured in both reveune and power over the people. That's because under representation, there couldn't be a continuous, unstoppable expansion of government power. You don't really believe that the majority actually wants government to expand indefinitely, do you?

  42. ...and what ad do we get reading the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ford F-Series of course. Burn more oil !

  43. Fox fought and won to tell lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you forget when Fox went to court to protect their "right" to lie in the Fox Network news?

    1. Re:Fox fought and won to tell lies. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Did you forget that the other news agencies filed amicus briefs supporting Fox?

      Why don't you look up the f**king case and see what it was about instead of talking out of your a$$.

      Among a million other sources: http://skeptics.stackexchange....

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  44. Re:Of course! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    Trump is economically liberal (big business crony-capitalist) and socially conservative. The Koch Brothers have been promoting more Libertarian view points. This may all fall under the Big Tent view of Republicans but they are not the same.

    The Democrats have similar problems. They used to be the party of labor. They are no longer. Witness the Keystone Pipeline debates. A lot of labor which had previously supported the Democrats are now voting for Trump.

    Trump is a populist. Weird but there it is. A billionaire NYC real estate developer acts like a populist and get support because of his populist rhetoric.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  45. Tesla was worse than Solyndra by mi · · Score: 1

    What did the gov't sponsor in that succeeded? Tesla. Right.

    Our — the taxpayers' — investment in Tesla was even worse than the Solyndra fiasco.

    VCs lose money all the time.

    VCs invest their own money — and they can not lose more than earn for very long. Government invests — and loses — ours and can keep on losing forever, because it can compel us to keep giving it more.

    Capitalism works, Socialism does not — if you accept the 100 years of failure, from Lenin's USSR to Chavez's Venezuela, as any guide.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Tesla was worse than Solyndra by dywolf · · Score: 1

      You never read what you link, do you?
      The authors argument is that the Tesla deal is worse because Tesla succeeded, but the government (and therefore taxpayers) is making no money off of Tesla's success.

      On the basis of the loan itself, and the purpose behind the loans of fostering innovation, it succeeded. Tesla succeeded, and paid the loan back. Early even.
      On the basis of making money like a VC would, yes, the taxpayer got no shares or equity or other gain from that success, and Tesla now stands to profit immensely from that loan.

      However, that is not "worse than solyndra" or in any way a failure.
      -

      VCs do lose money all the time. But when they win, they win big. That's why they can lose 2 out of 3 deals regularly and still be successful.
      --

      Ignoring your continual confusion of communism with socialism, your continued lack of education as to what caused the failure of the USSR or Venezuela, or how you ignore Europe, Canada, and Australia continued lack of failure*....

      If capitalism works, why does it need socialist elements to keep from self-destructing?

      The fact is your black and white binary viewpoint is infinitely ignorant of reality and history.
      Essential services and natural monopolies work best as utilities, aka social owned/controlled.
      That's roads, police, fire, military, electricity, water, etc, as well as the social programs that prevent capitalism from leaving anyone behind and shift the economy from benefiting an ever shrinking number of people to benefiting everyone. What works is a blended mix of both, as evidenced by the nearly the entire western nation.

      *This is the part where you state the they are capitalist.
      Then you get reminded that they operate strong social programs aka socialized democracy models aka democratic socialism, which you also confuse with socialism/communism/etc.
      Then you state you never any such thing.
      Then you get reminded that you continually call Sanders a communist contrary to all evidence.
      Then you'll call that a lie.
      Then we'll begin laughing at you anew.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  46. Sounds like federal politicians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like federal politicians to me. The entire system is corrupt and our gov't is an oligarchy.

    *SIGH*

  47. Trump 2016, baby by mi · · Score: 1

    go tell that to the Chinese who manipulated their currency to flood the market and drive out American competition like Solyndra

    Trump will :-) Some people disagree with him (and you), but he'll tell them nonetheless.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  48. Most powerful man vs families? by MichaelJackson123 · · Score: 1

    Everybody talks about "wealthiest man on earth" and mentions Gates, etc. There are 83 persons on the world that own half the globe's assets. But they never talk about the wealthiest family, like this one, owning this company. If a single man like Gates can build a $70 billion fortune in a life time, what can a dynasty build over centuries? Which is the wealthiest family today? Google it, and be surprised.

  49. Oil is corrupt? Big surprise - NOT by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    30 years in the game and I'm not in the least astonished.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  50. Hey, this is good. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    A leak from an oil company, that turns out to be documents? Thank the Lord.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  51. HuffPo slogan: HP RS by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    The Huffington Post has a new slogan: More professional than "Rolling Stone".

    OK, OK. I'll read the article.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  52. Micropayments by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the app trend of micropayments.... Sure you can play for free, but to build that refinery, it will take 24h to complete, OR you could pay 2.99 for 25 gems which you can then use to complete that refinery right now! However if you want to be competitive at all, you pretty much *have* to make the payments, or not bother playing the game at all...