EC's Adventures

A Blog about Blogging

I have come to the conclusion that I don't have the mental and emotional constitution to be the kind of blogger that posts on political or controversial issues.  I am too much of a people pleaser and, to be honest, a bit of a weeny.  Putting thoughts out there that others my disagree with is actually scary to me.  What if someone doesn't like it?  What if they disagree?  What if that makes them not like me anymore?  Too much to stress over with these types of posts.  I never realized how self-conscious I am until I started this blog.  Do all writers go through these emotions? Am I too sensitive?

I have to admit, my experiences with blogging have made me admire those who can write about their beliefs and share them publicly, especially people who are widely known to the public like newspaper or magazine columnists or pundits who go on TV and talk about their views, or, to a lesser extent, politicians who make a living off of espousing their views and taking positions on controversial topics.  I wonder if it ever gets easier.  Do they become immune to the criticism (or the fear of it) after a while?  Do they have enough self-confidence to say (and really mean) "screw them if they don't like it"? 

I think I will stick to my fluffy posts like the one about potato chips in the UK and leave the heavy hitting to those who can handle it.  Although, I have already started a draft of a post about a NYT article on student loan debt.  So, maybe after that one....... 

UK Coverage of BP Oil Spill

I think that one of the more interesting aspects of living abroad is seeing how US stories are covered here.  A great case in point is the coverage of the BP oil spill.  (See the following for a sample:  Telegraph on dividends and share value, Telegraph urging Cameron to be tough with Obama,   Guardian discusses environmental disaster, Guardian on furor over dividends, Financial Times on BP share value)   

Through the coverage of the oil spill, I have learned that until recently, BP was Britain's biggest company.  An estimated 18 million Britons own shares in BP, directly or indirectly through funds. BP's dividend payments account for approximately £1 out of every £6 pounds of dividends paid to Birtish pension funds. But, Britons are not the only ones who are heavily invested in BP.  The company is 40% owned by Americans.

All sources acknowledge that the spill is an enormous environmental disaster.  No one can honestly deny that.  But, there is a lot of coverage here on what the practical implications are when BP's share price drops or dividends are not paid.  Pensioners (retirees) depend on dividend income to survive.  If an estimated 17% of that income is no longer there because the Obama Administration has decided to vent its anger and frustration with the spill by prohibiting BP from issuing a dividend, who is really hurt?  The people who decided to drill a well with no back up plan in the event of disaster?  No, because even if they have shares in BP, those in charge of these decisions are probably wealthy and / or diversified enough not to be hit too hard financially.  The people who will be hurt are ordinary citizens, people with shares in BP held through pension funds.

Don't get me wrong.  I am mad as hell about this spill.  Every picture I see of the spill's damage nearly brings me to tears.  I don't understand how oil wells could be drilled without a back up plan in place.  To me that is grossly negilgant, if not criminally.  I believe the drop in share price is completely warranted - BP is facing seemingly immeasurable costs to clean up this disasater and these unknown costs should decrease BP's share value.  I just don't think that punishing those who had no part in the decision process is the answer. 

UPDATE:  The BP oil spill has added a new level of drama to tomorrow's World Cup game!