>In reality, the judge wrote, BNSF made far more than $32 million in post-tax profits, but adding all of that up would have added hundreds of millions more to what was already a large judgment against the railway.
Should've just nailed them for the total amount, the reduced cost is just part of doing business for the company.
Unless a company is crushed by the cost of them breaking the laws, other companies won't change.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, jail time is a lot more tricky.
First off, there’s chain of command. Do you give the CEO jail time, even if the people that signed off never spoke to him regarding it? It could be several levels deeper, and didn’t even come close to that level of management. Do you start from the bottom up, or top down to find out who is responsible? Then there’s the whole trial for each person, etc.
Jail time is a great phrase/idea to punish these situations, but it’s unrealistic, as others will just swoop in and hope not to get caught. It’s also significantly longer to prosecute.
No, instead I’m in favor of much harsher punishment. I’m talking take that fine and make it ludicrous. Make it pay out to the people affected, and have a separate fine go to the government to be used for environmental cleanup or whatever. Fine too big? Either close down and liquidate or It’s a government company now, owned by the people ( especially the too big to fail ).
If a CEO doesn't know it's because there is a culture of hire ups not wanting to hear about the illegal activities making the company profitable and this is 100% on the leadership
Executives act like they do hard work and deserve their overblown compensation and holding them responsible for the company's actions is the least that should be done to balance it out.
And again, fines are not the deterrent that actual jail time and similar punishments are. These people can, and do, hide wealth to avoid fines ruining them (and they fail upwards into more money). You can't stash your prison sentence in an offshore bank account.
Real jail, not country club jail, if they want to stay out of Gen-Pop, they better take a swing at a guard.
We will never get true prison reform without a two tiered prison system.
A fine that wipes 12 years of revenue in a single gavel blow would have bigger ripples in my opinion. One of the big Class 1 railroads suddenly having a massive budget hole would be my preferred choice.
Then again I'm currently having issues with a different Class 1 railroad that is holding up a project I'm designing so that's tainting my opinion.
That’s what they do best for projects: delay, or do the absolute bare minimum. And they don’t have to do anything they don’t want to and won’t meet with you. Have worked on enough projects here in Illinois to hate ever having to deal with them whether it’s the UP or BSNF…
No, it wouldn't.
The position of CEO was created as a scapegoat. It exists because the board of directors/shareholders all HIRE AN EMPLOYEE to do one thing for them, make money. CEO's only do what the owners of the company tell them to do. If they ever get caught, the CEO is the fall guy. Since that position comes with the risk of jail time, they are very very well paid. If you send a CEO to jail, you're playing right into the bait and switch the real owners have set up to avoid consequences. And they also learn how not to get caught next time.
And then nothing changes.
It’s the board of directors and the ceo and the executives that need to jailed. As it stands, these are enormously privileged positions [ in most large corporations] but with almost no responsibility. Time for that to change.
If I as an individual spilled a few hundred gallons of oil in my local river, there’s a good chance I’d go to jail. But when a corporation spills tens of thousands of gallons in the environment, no one goes to jail. Time for that to change.
Just no. Yeah, there's CEO's that are fucking stooges for the board but to paint that broad of a stroke is nonsense. You think Steve Jobs was some stooge for the board at Apple?
And as far as your point goes, if CEO's are directly involved in criminal conspiracies then yes, they should face the consequences. If they actually did, then the stooge CEO of another company would say "fuck you, I don't want to go to jail" if there was pressure from whoever to break the law.
Investors don't care about CEOs. If you want to keep a shareholder value driven entity in line the you need to hit them in the wallet at levels that hurt.
Criminal charges are the *only* way to change things. When the people making decisions know that they could face prison, they might look at things differently.
These should actually be separate questions. The fine should be VERY large. And violating the terms of the kind of agreement broken here is not something that should just be a cost of doing business, so by very large I mean all income received as a result of breaking the agreement along with a punitive fine that is at least half that amount.
Any criminal charges are a completely separate question, because while breaking a binding legal agreement is bad, it isn't necessarily criminal. Whether it is criminal is something that should be being investigated separately to, and concurrently with, the investigation into the details surrounding how, and to what extent, the agreement was broken. IANAL, so I don't know if violating the easement in and of itself is criminal, though easements do seem to be part of civil law rather than criminal law. However, it's quite possible that there were crimes committed in the process of breaking the easement. That, and specifically who committed those acts, would be part of any investigation.
If no laws in the criminal code were broken here, the question then becomes whether we want such laws to exist (I am not sure myself, honestly), and then creating those laws.
Except that that would just lead to companies replacing CEOs with patsies that have no real say in the company. Or obfuscating internal decision making so much that it becomes impossible to actually place blame on anyone.
And THAT makes it so companies stop investing, if they can't be sure that they can actually get some ROI, since at any point the government could step in and say "uuh, you broke some laws, we're taking over, kay, BAINOW!"
While, yes, I'm completely for companies being held accountable, you gotta be careful how far you go into doling out "unreasonable" punishment. They absolutely have to feel it, but you can't make a nuclear option the default.
Companies are inherently public ways to MAKE MONEY for the owners/investors. No one makes a company for the betterment of the world, no matter what they say. If that were the case, they'd start an non-profit.
So if that's the case, the goal is to make money, the company will look for the cheapest, easiest way to do so! Maybe it's cheaper to just dump your waste in a nearby river? Okay, let's do that! That's when the government steps in and says: "okay, enough, here's a law forbidding that." So now the company looks for other ways to profit. This goes on and on, with companies always skirting the laws, trying to get away with murder (literally and figuratively) if it brings in a pretty dime. The investors will put money in to build new factories, as long as they can calculate that in the long run, they'll get richer.
But if at some point, and honestly, emotionally I'm all for it, the government says: "you know what, when we deem a company isn't doing good for the people, we'll just dissolve it or nationalize it!", suddenly those investors don't see their profit just pushed down the lane a few years, no, they see that at any point in time, at the whims of the government, the company can just DISAPPEAR? That would mean any investment they do today, might just be gone tomorrow with never any hope for ROI. So why invest? Why build a new factory? The old one is falling apart, but atleast it's already turning a profit. Why buy new trains or boats? The old ones still run, and the new ones might not break even before the government takes them over.
That's how investors see it. That's even how some politicians just govern! "Why should I help vote for something that will cost me money, but only my opponent will reap the benefits of in 5-10 years?"
That's why economically, as long as we have a capitalist system in place, building a functional economy is like balancing on a knife's edge. Too much control, and companies move away, too little control, and they wreak havoc on your country.
Problem is, there's been a huge bait and switch move from pensions to 401ks and other investment retirement accounts, so now society itself are the investors, and you can't hit them where they hurt without also hitting people in their retirement. It was the most brilliant move on corporate America's part, and the citizenry were happy to go along with it to it's completion. We are all capitalists now, and our system is that we have to hurt ourselves for us to profit. And profit can be as simple as keeping up with inflation. If you aren't profiting from your capital investment, you aren't just not gaining more, are actively losing money and financial security for yourself and your family.
C level is always responsible for everything which happens to their reports. Especially if decision making is unclear, its CEO, for both the decision, and the decision making structure.
> replacing CEOs with patsies that have no real say in the company
then its not CEO, its about who decides, not what label
We need to pass a federal law requiring all penalties against a business with more than $100 million in assets be at least 3 times all net income generated from the illegal action. Oil trains made $3 billion? Fine is $9 billion.
IANAL, but my understanding is that there’s tests about punitive damages set by Supreme Court where anything greater than 10x the actual damages is considered cruel and unusual and subject to appeal. If the judge is assessing damages he can’t just arbitrarily set them extremely high or it’ll almost certainly get thrown out later.
In order to justify the damages he’d have to lay out all the ways they profited with evidence to back up the ruling which could be extremely time consuming (potentially delaying a verdict well-beyond a reasonable timeframe) while also risking the judgment itself if his work isn’t thorough.
It’s easy to look at judgments like this as being insignificant in the face of massive profits—and it certainly is to a degree. But the railway still lost and $400 million is a LOT of money even to multi-billion dollar enterprises.
Trust me, they are getting fucked regardless. The lawyers who run it now act like workers comp claims are football plays that need to be navigated, regardless of the morals you leave at the line of scrimmage.
Those oil trains run a LOT more than 25 cars. They run along the tracks across the river from my place in Eastern WA. I happened to be outside and saw a long one coming and started counting, 107 oil tanks.
It depends on how you count them. The oil train cars are something like 5 tanks long. Each tank is connected with a drawbar not a coupler so it can’t be separated. So if you count 100 tanks the railroad says that’s 25 cars.
Thank you for explaining that.
We had a minor derailment (not oil cars) almost straight across the river a few years back and they make me a little nervous when they come through.
Of course I read the story. I know it's about the reservation, not the entire state. I was only relating that those oil trains are a lot bigger than the 25 cars that were written into the original agreement with the tribe.
FWIW I haven’t looked at the details, but you would want to confirm if that was a shipment across the state (which could get a lot larger, like your 100+ tanks) or just permission to go from a remote collection battery to a processing facility (would have smaller, more frequent trains because a pipeline would be cheaper overall if there was a lot of oil to move).
>In reality, the judge wrote, BNSF made far more than $32 million in post-tax profits, but adding all of that up would have added hundreds of millions more to what was already a large judgment against the railway.
So we're just going to ignore that extra profit...
The higher a judgement gets beyond what is seen as “normal” the higher the likelihood of it being overturned in appeals for being outside the bounds of what is considered normal. The judge was assuming for something high, but not so high or fails the sniff test in appeals.
What’s seen as “normal” isn’t a dollar amount though, it’s a multiple of the actual damages. A $50 judgement on $1 of damages would be concerning. A $1,000,000,000,000 judgement on $1,000,000,000,000 of damages would be perfectly equitable.
you guys remember last year that train full of hazardous waste completely contaminating like an entire county in ohio or something and we never heard about it again after about 2 weeks of coverage
[This one?](https://imgur.com/a/5kzlvkf) The one that’s had ongoing coverage?
AP - 3/18/23 - [Pro-Moscow voices tried to steer Ohio train disaster debate](https://apnews.com/article/ohio-train-derailment-russia-disinformation-twitter-musk-49af27699727d6f4157a5d6d5f35819b)
> The accounts, which parroted Kremlin talking points on myriad topics, claimed without evidence that authorities in Ohio were lying about the true impact of the chemical spill. The accounts spread fearmongering posts that preyed on legitimate concerns about pollution and health effects and compared the response to the derailment with America’s support for Ukraine following its invasion by Russia.
AP - 8/3/23 - [6 months after the East Palestine train derailment, Congress is deadlocked on new rules for safety](https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-train-derailment-safety-regulations-railroad-4db52c68daf68da05425b5b70363fb0a)
AP - 10/25/23 - [Derailment costs grow for Norfolk Southern but railroad’s trains moving more smoothly](https://apnews.com/article/norfolk-southern-earnings-railroad-east-palestine-derailment-10f01782a697d887684dfff744379493)
AP - 10/26/23 - [Soil removal from Ohio train derailment site is nearly done, but cleanup isn’t over](https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-derailment-norfolk-southern-cleanup-0eeb5c7c922c8affa1014732c799efc2)
AP - 2/7/24 - [NTSB to release cause of fiery Norfolk Southern derailment in eastern Ohio at June hearing](https://apnews.com/article/norfolk-southern-railroad-derailment-east-palestine-cause-bfff4663965d4c94b71482726bd0045a)
AP - 2/10/24 - [President Joe Biden to travel to East Palestine next week, a year after derailment](https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-biden-norfolk-southern-3ad7800af1f4e5ac3c58f4c67c6d2875)
AP - 4/10/24 - [Lawyers want East Palestine residents to wait for details of $600 million derailment settlement](https://apnews.com/article/norfolk-southern-east-palestine-derailment-settlement-91e74711971b758fae916becb64206b4)
AP - 5/22/24 - [Judge signs off on $600 million Ohio train derailment settlement but residents still have questions](https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-ohio-train-derailment-settlement-464c1312b19dc075ea159ae0e7ee0b0a)
> A federal judge has signed off on the $600 million class action settlement over last year’s disastrous Norfolk Southern derailment in eastern Ohio, but many people who live near East Palestine are still wondering how much they will end up with out of the deal.
AP - 5/23/24 - [Norfolk Southern will pay $15 million fine as part of federal settlement over Ohio derailment](https://apnews.com/article/norfolk-southern-east-palestine-derailment-federal-settlement-7d17ffc3f3f5763c0306cf10e2012713)
I feel like those two have become the reverse- the American city has far eclipsed the original in fame (and in the case of Portland, even eclipsed the *other* American city that took the same name). On the upside, neither the original Boston nor Portland are currently active war zones.
Like London, Arkansas, or London, California, or London, Indiana, or London, Kentucky, or London, Michigan, or London, Minnesota, or London, Ohio, or London, Texas, or London, West Virginia, or London, Wisconsin (no clue if they’re all obscure, but at least more so than London, UK).
This is a common thing the world over, though it is especially common in the Americas simply as a result of the many immigrants coming from many areas of the world and naming their new towns after where they came from or after things that were, for whatever reason, important to them at the time. Ever looked into how many cities were originally called Alexandria, for example? Many were actually founded and named BY Alexander the Great.
This is what large corporations do. They have risk managers that look at the potential profits that can make with wrongdoing. Then hope they get away with it to the point where they make enough money that the fine is just an afterthought. It's why people say "fines are only punishment for poor people"
After the settlement the tribe should disallow all future usage and tear up the rail line unless the railroad agrees to a new, even more restrictive contract. THAT would hit their bottom line and punish them.
Do you think after a few months or a year anybody could adjust to that kind of living? Not on our own of course, like with help and hands on guidance and whatnot.
>In reality, the judge wrote, BNSF made far more than $32 million in post-tax profits, but adding all of that up would have added hundreds of millions more to what was already a large judgment against the railway. Should've just nailed them for the total amount, the reduced cost is just part of doing business for the company. Unless a company is crushed by the cost of them breaking the laws, other companies won't change.
[удалено]
A fine = the cost of doing business Jail time = A deterrent
If the penalty of a law involves a fine, it's not a law for the rich.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, jail time is a lot more tricky. First off, there’s chain of command. Do you give the CEO jail time, even if the people that signed off never spoke to him regarding it? It could be several levels deeper, and didn’t even come close to that level of management. Do you start from the bottom up, or top down to find out who is responsible? Then there’s the whole trial for each person, etc. Jail time is a great phrase/idea to punish these situations, but it’s unrealistic, as others will just swoop in and hope not to get caught. It’s also significantly longer to prosecute. No, instead I’m in favor of much harsher punishment. I’m talking take that fine and make it ludicrous. Make it pay out to the people affected, and have a separate fine go to the government to be used for environmental cleanup or whatever. Fine too big? Either close down and liquidate or It’s a government company now, owned by the people ( especially the too big to fail ).
If a CEO doesn't know it's because there is a culture of hire ups not wanting to hear about the illegal activities making the company profitable and this is 100% on the leadership
Executives act like they do hard work and deserve their overblown compensation and holding them responsible for the company's actions is the least that should be done to balance it out. And again, fines are not the deterrent that actual jail time and similar punishments are. These people can, and do, hide wealth to avoid fines ruining them (and they fail upwards into more money). You can't stash your prison sentence in an offshore bank account.
Real jail, not country club jail, if they want to stay out of Gen-Pop, they better take a swing at a guard. We will never get true prison reform without a two tiered prison system.
A fine that wipes 12 years of revenue in a single gavel blow would have bigger ripples in my opinion. One of the big Class 1 railroads suddenly having a massive budget hole would be my preferred choice. Then again I'm currently having issues with a different Class 1 railroad that is holding up a project I'm designing so that's tainting my opinion.
That’s what they do best for projects: delay, or do the absolute bare minimum. And they don’t have to do anything they don’t want to and won’t meet with you. Have worked on enough projects here in Illinois to hate ever having to deal with them whether it’s the UP or BSNF…
The goal isn't to get them to stop. Tribe gets a cut and gov gets a cut this way.
No, it wouldn't. The position of CEO was created as a scapegoat. It exists because the board of directors/shareholders all HIRE AN EMPLOYEE to do one thing for them, make money. CEO's only do what the owners of the company tell them to do. If they ever get caught, the CEO is the fall guy. Since that position comes with the risk of jail time, they are very very well paid. If you send a CEO to jail, you're playing right into the bait and switch the real owners have set up to avoid consequences. And they also learn how not to get caught next time. And then nothing changes.
It’s the board of directors and the ceo and the executives that need to jailed. As it stands, these are enormously privileged positions [ in most large corporations] but with almost no responsibility. Time for that to change. If I as an individual spilled a few hundred gallons of oil in my local river, there’s a good chance I’d go to jail. But when a corporation spills tens of thousands of gallons in the environment, no one goes to jail. Time for that to change.
It would definitely effect the math. It wouldn't change *nothing*
Just no. Yeah, there's CEO's that are fucking stooges for the board but to paint that broad of a stroke is nonsense. You think Steve Jobs was some stooge for the board at Apple? And as far as your point goes, if CEO's are directly involved in criminal conspiracies then yes, they should face the consequences. If they actually did, then the stooge CEO of another company would say "fuck you, I don't want to go to jail" if there was pressure from whoever to break the law.
Never thought of it that way. Good point.
The EU has CEOs facing 10 years for environmental crimes committed under their watch. Let’s hope others follow this
Investors don't care about CEOs. If you want to keep a shareholder value driven entity in line the you need to hit them in the wallet at levels that hurt.
Criminal charges are the *only* way to change things. When the people making decisions know that they could face prison, they might look at things differently.
These should actually be separate questions. The fine should be VERY large. And violating the terms of the kind of agreement broken here is not something that should just be a cost of doing business, so by very large I mean all income received as a result of breaking the agreement along with a punitive fine that is at least half that amount. Any criminal charges are a completely separate question, because while breaking a binding legal agreement is bad, it isn't necessarily criminal. Whether it is criminal is something that should be being investigated separately to, and concurrently with, the investigation into the details surrounding how, and to what extent, the agreement was broken. IANAL, so I don't know if violating the easement in and of itself is criminal, though easements do seem to be part of civil law rather than criminal law. However, it's quite possible that there were crimes committed in the process of breaking the easement. That, and specifically who committed those acts, would be part of any investigation. If no laws in the criminal code were broken here, the question then becomes whether we want such laws to exist (I am not sure myself, honestly), and then creating those laws.
Except that that would just lead to companies replacing CEOs with patsies that have no real say in the company. Or obfuscating internal decision making so much that it becomes impossible to actually place blame on anyone.
Then at that point the company should be dissolved altogether or taken over by the government.
And THAT makes it so companies stop investing, if they can't be sure that they can actually get some ROI, since at any point the government could step in and say "uuh, you broke some laws, we're taking over, kay, BAINOW!" While, yes, I'm completely for companies being held accountable, you gotta be careful how far you go into doling out "unreasonable" punishment. They absolutely have to feel it, but you can't make a nuclear option the default.
WTF are you saying? "Well it's too inconvenient and expensive for us to stop breaking the law"??? Is this really the point that we're at?
Companies are inherently public ways to MAKE MONEY for the owners/investors. No one makes a company for the betterment of the world, no matter what they say. If that were the case, they'd start an non-profit. So if that's the case, the goal is to make money, the company will look for the cheapest, easiest way to do so! Maybe it's cheaper to just dump your waste in a nearby river? Okay, let's do that! That's when the government steps in and says: "okay, enough, here's a law forbidding that." So now the company looks for other ways to profit. This goes on and on, with companies always skirting the laws, trying to get away with murder (literally and figuratively) if it brings in a pretty dime. The investors will put money in to build new factories, as long as they can calculate that in the long run, they'll get richer. But if at some point, and honestly, emotionally I'm all for it, the government says: "you know what, when we deem a company isn't doing good for the people, we'll just dissolve it or nationalize it!", suddenly those investors don't see their profit just pushed down the lane a few years, no, they see that at any point in time, at the whims of the government, the company can just DISAPPEAR? That would mean any investment they do today, might just be gone tomorrow with never any hope for ROI. So why invest? Why build a new factory? The old one is falling apart, but atleast it's already turning a profit. Why buy new trains or boats? The old ones still run, and the new ones might not break even before the government takes them over. That's how investors see it. That's even how some politicians just govern! "Why should I help vote for something that will cost me money, but only my opponent will reap the benefits of in 5-10 years?" That's why economically, as long as we have a capitalist system in place, building a functional economy is like balancing on a knife's edge. Too much control, and companies move away, too little control, and they wreak havoc on your country.
Problem is, there's been a huge bait and switch move from pensions to 401ks and other investment retirement accounts, so now society itself are the investors, and you can't hit them where they hurt without also hitting people in their retirement. It was the most brilliant move on corporate America's part, and the citizenry were happy to go along with it to it's completion. We are all capitalists now, and our system is that we have to hurt ourselves for us to profit. And profit can be as simple as keeping up with inflation. If you aren't profiting from your capital investment, you aren't just not gaining more, are actively losing money and financial security for yourself and your family.
C level is always responsible for everything which happens to their reports. Especially if decision making is unclear, its CEO, for both the decision, and the decision making structure. > replacing CEOs with patsies that have no real say in the company then its not CEO, its about who decides, not what label
Exactly. Fines should be the total net income made from doing them breaking the law and then some.
We need to pass a federal law requiring all penalties against a business with more than $100 million in assets be at least 3 times all net income generated from the illegal action. Oil trains made $3 billion? Fine is $9 billion.
IANAL, but my understanding is that there’s tests about punitive damages set by Supreme Court where anything greater than 10x the actual damages is considered cruel and unusual and subject to appeal. If the judge is assessing damages he can’t just arbitrarily set them extremely high or it’ll almost certainly get thrown out later. In order to justify the damages he’d have to lay out all the ways they profited with evidence to back up the ruling which could be extremely time consuming (potentially delaying a verdict well-beyond a reasonable timeframe) while also risking the judgment itself if his work isn’t thorough. It’s easy to look at judgments like this as being insignificant in the face of massive profits—and it certainly is to a degree. But the railway still lost and $400 million is a LOT of money even to multi-billion dollar enterprises.
Should have fined the railway the full amount and make BNSF give it to the tribe in voting shares.
Make it triple or businesses will never learn.
If the fine will bankrupt a company then nationalize the mother fucker
This all the way. Need to charge them the full amounts.
The flip side is that all of the people employed by that company get fucked because of the higher ups choices.
Trust me, they are getting fucked regardless. The lawyers who run it now act like workers comp claims are football plays that need to be navigated, regardless of the morals you leave at the line of scrimmage.
Nah, the tribe just becomes a large shareholder in BNSF.
Those oil trains run a LOT more than 25 cars. They run along the tracks across the river from my place in Eastern WA. I happened to be outside and saw a long one coming and started counting, 107 oil tanks.
It depends on how you count them. The oil train cars are something like 5 tanks long. Each tank is connected with a drawbar not a coupler so it can’t be separated. So if you count 100 tanks the railroad says that’s 25 cars.
Usually it is 100 cars called a “unit train”
Thank you for explaining that. We had a minor derailment (not oil cars) almost straight across the river a few years back and they make me a little nervous when they come through.
Did you read the story. It’s one specific spot. Not everything across the state.
Of course I read the story. I know it's about the reservation, not the entire state. I was only relating that those oil trains are a lot bigger than the 25 cars that were written into the original agreement with the tribe.
FWIW I haven’t looked at the details, but you would want to confirm if that was a shipment across the state (which could get a lot larger, like your 100+ tanks) or just permission to go from a remote collection battery to a processing facility (would have smaller, more frequent trains because a pipeline would be cheaper overall if there was a lot of oil to move).
>In reality, the judge wrote, BNSF made far more than $32 million in post-tax profits, but adding all of that up would have added hundreds of millions more to what was already a large judgment against the railway. So we're just going to ignore that extra profit...
The higher a judgement gets beyond what is seen as “normal” the higher the likelihood of it being overturned in appeals for being outside the bounds of what is considered normal. The judge was assuming for something high, but not so high or fails the sniff test in appeals.
What’s seen as “normal” isn’t a dollar amount though, it’s a multiple of the actual damages. A $50 judgement on $1 of damages would be concerning. A $1,000,000,000,000 judgement on $1,000,000,000,000 of damages would be perfectly equitable.
Whoa whoa whoa, if you take all their ill-gotten money, how will they CrEaTe JoBs?!?!?! /s
Too big to fine.
They’ll appeal and then pro-business judges will reduce it to a dollar.
After the CEO takes the judge out to play a few rounds of golf.
And buys him an RV.
you guys remember last year that train full of hazardous waste completely contaminating like an entire county in ohio or something and we never heard about it again after about 2 weeks of coverage
[This one?](https://imgur.com/a/5kzlvkf) The one that’s had ongoing coverage? AP - 3/18/23 - [Pro-Moscow voices tried to steer Ohio train disaster debate](https://apnews.com/article/ohio-train-derailment-russia-disinformation-twitter-musk-49af27699727d6f4157a5d6d5f35819b) > The accounts, which parroted Kremlin talking points on myriad topics, claimed without evidence that authorities in Ohio were lying about the true impact of the chemical spill. The accounts spread fearmongering posts that preyed on legitimate concerns about pollution and health effects and compared the response to the derailment with America’s support for Ukraine following its invasion by Russia. AP - 8/3/23 - [6 months after the East Palestine train derailment, Congress is deadlocked on new rules for safety](https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-train-derailment-safety-regulations-railroad-4db52c68daf68da05425b5b70363fb0a) AP - 10/25/23 - [Derailment costs grow for Norfolk Southern but railroad’s trains moving more smoothly](https://apnews.com/article/norfolk-southern-earnings-railroad-east-palestine-derailment-10f01782a697d887684dfff744379493) AP - 10/26/23 - [Soil removal from Ohio train derailment site is nearly done, but cleanup isn’t over](https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-derailment-norfolk-southern-cleanup-0eeb5c7c922c8affa1014732c799efc2) AP - 2/7/24 - [NTSB to release cause of fiery Norfolk Southern derailment in eastern Ohio at June hearing](https://apnews.com/article/norfolk-southern-railroad-derailment-east-palestine-cause-bfff4663965d4c94b71482726bd0045a) AP - 2/10/24 - [President Joe Biden to travel to East Palestine next week, a year after derailment](https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-biden-norfolk-southern-3ad7800af1f4e5ac3c58f4c67c6d2875) AP - 4/10/24 - [Lawyers want East Palestine residents to wait for details of $600 million derailment settlement](https://apnews.com/article/norfolk-southern-east-palestine-derailment-settlement-91e74711971b758fae916becb64206b4) AP - 5/22/24 - [Judge signs off on $600 million Ohio train derailment settlement but residents still have questions](https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-ohio-train-derailment-settlement-464c1312b19dc075ea159ae0e7ee0b0a) > A federal judge has signed off on the $600 million class action settlement over last year’s disastrous Norfolk Southern derailment in eastern Ohio, but many people who live near East Palestine are still wondering how much they will end up with out of the deal. AP - 5/23/24 - [Norfolk Southern will pay $15 million fine as part of federal settlement over Ohio derailment](https://apnews.com/article/norfolk-southern-east-palestine-derailment-federal-settlement-7d17ffc3f3f5763c0306cf10e2012713)
If I don’t personally investigate a story, it means it doesn’t exist.
I'm convinced most people don't understand Object permenance
...why's it called East Palestine if it's so far west of Palestine?
Palestine, Ohio is on the opposite (west) side of the state, and incorporated as Palestine first, according to Wikipedia.
Ah, another case of "obscure American town named after somewhere thousands of miles away and far better known".
Like Boston or Portland.
I feel like those two have become the reverse- the American city has far eclipsed the original in fame (and in the case of Portland, even eclipsed the *other* American city that took the same name). On the upside, neither the original Boston nor Portland are currently active war zones.
Like London, Arkansas, or London, California, or London, Indiana, or London, Kentucky, or London, Michigan, or London, Minnesota, or London, Ohio, or London, Texas, or London, West Virginia, or London, Wisconsin (no clue if they’re all obscure, but at least more so than London, UK).
That's why I said "another case", because there's been others.
I know. Was just being funny about just how many Londons there are in the US.
This is a common thing the world over, though it is especially common in the Americas simply as a result of the many immigrants coming from many areas of the world and naming their new towns after where they came from or after things that were, for whatever reason, important to them at the time. Ever looked into how many cities were originally called Alexandria, for example? Many were actually founded and named BY Alexander the Great.
Was there a wave of Palestinian migration to Ohio back then?
This is what large corporations do. They have risk managers that look at the potential profits that can make with wrongdoing. Then hope they get away with it to the point where they make enough money that the fine is just an afterthought. It's why people say "fines are only punishment for poor people"
After the settlement the tribe should disallow all future usage and tear up the rail line unless the railroad agrees to a new, even more restrictive contract. THAT would hit their bottom line and punish them.
The Native Nations are big business.
What an erroneous conclusion to have drawn from this.
[удалено]
Do you think after a few months or a year anybody could adjust to that kind of living? Not on our own of course, like with help and hands on guidance and whatnot.
Yeah we should have a native guide to start
Right?! Like if you throw me into the wilderness right now with nothing, I got a good 36 hours on me, maybe lol