shiva bowl

From the article's website:

quote:

---

About Us
What is The Red Shtick?

The Red Shtick is the digital offspring (some might say “bastard child”) of Red Shtick Magazine, which served as the only print satirical publication in Louisiana’s capital city for 8½ years. (That’s like 92 in Baton Rouge satirical publication years.)

Like its progenitor, The Red Shtick likes to think of itself as a bold and engaging source of satire and irreverent humor. And while The Red Shtick is completely digital and subsequently limited only by the scope of the worldwide web, it – like its printed precursor – has a tendency to focus on happenings in Baton Rouge and the rest of South Louisiana.

---

quote:

---

Who is The Red Shtick?

The Red Shtick is written by a collection of talented contributors representing various backgrounds: black, white, male, female, conservative, liberal, Christian, Buddhist, hell-bound atheist, and even Yankee.



Why does The Red Shtick exist?

The Red Shtick’s mission is to provide the Baton Rouge area (and the rest of the digital world) a comical enema to cure political impaction and cultural constipation.

---

quote:

---

The drilling company who probably did the damage is almost certainly out of business but everyone who ever went out and did anything on the property is included in the lawsuit. Are they responsible for cleanup just because they are in the oil business?

---

There are express and implied duties in the Mineral Code on prudent drilling operations. Further, there are duties that the original lessee may have agreed to in the original lease. Also, there are regulatory P & A duties. These duties are frequently assigned to operators down the line. In sum, through the history of operating a well, multiple companies incurred obilgations and the legacy lawsuit is utilized to enforce those obligations.

quote:

---

Second, our system does not require the landowner who is the plaintiff, but who was likely not the owner at the time of the damage, to use the money for the cleanup. It often just goes into the pockets of the new owner and his attorneys

---

First, the damage occurs over a period of time and can continue until there is a remediation of the land. So, the damage can be caused by the operations during one landowner's ownership, but the damages continue after the causation of the damage. Second, since the enactment of Act 312 of 2006 and amendments to the Act, there must be a remediation plan that sets aside funds for cleanup. Second, not all of the funds go to landowner and his attorneys. For example, there was a jury trial in Cameron Parish in Nov. 2011, where the jury awarded $36 million for Act 312 remediation and $18 million for private damages. The Third Circuit recently held that the plaintiffs' attorneys could not take their contingency fee on the $36 million for clean-up.

Further, Act 312 was in direct response to the Corbello case, which did not require clean-up. Yet, the Corbello family agreed to put money in escrow for clean-up. When the family sought to implement a clean-up plan, they were denied a wetlands permit (required because the property contained wetlands). Why? Because Shell Oil opposed the permit. To this day, the money sits in an escrow account because the family cannot secure the permit. If the family had proceeded with clean-up, it would have gone against what the O & G industry repeatedly says: landowners will not use funds for clean-up.

Is the current system of litigating legacy lawsuits the best way to ensure fairness for all parties? No. But I think the O & G industry's piecemeal approach to legislation has caused more problems since the Corbello decision. The fact is that the O & G industry wanted Act 312 and declared it a victory. But they continue to go back and amend Act 312 in hopes of eventually eliminating contractual obligations that a company agreed to. And the Legislature is so tied to this industry's contributions that their decisions defy the legislators' political ideologies. For the conservative legislator, it defies the logic that everyone should be responsible for their own obligations, protecting the rights of landowners, and eliminating governmental regulations in favor of mutual agreements among private parties. For the liberal legislator, it defies the logic that big, scary O & G should bear the responsibility of cleaning up the mess. Yet, legislators on both sides of the aisle are persuaded by the money and misrepresentations of a special interest group that has accumulated tremendous wealth from the natural resources of La.

Finally, Adley's bill was supposed to be this great compromise between the O & G industry and landowners. Yet, this is a gross misrepresentation of the negotiations behind the bill. The industry and the Louisiana Landowners Association knocked out this "compromise" without any input from the attorneys who represent over 80% of the landowners who currently have lawsuits. The LLA represents the interest of a few landowners who happened to be the largest landowners in La. The LLA does not represent the interest of small landowners who have less resources to protect their land. So to call it a compromise is an insult to the legislative process.

quote:

---

It's baseless

---

quote:

---

While the industry may have had some culpability, they are certainly not the only party at fault

---

So a suit is baseless if one of the parties has some culpability?

quote:

---

That the coastal erosion we are facing is a direct result of the O&G industry. While the industry may have had some culpability, they are certainly not the only party at fault.

---

Have you read the suit? I can't find anywhere in the allegations that say that the O & G industry's actions were the only cause of coastal erosion. In fact, the proponents of the suit have pointed out studies by the U.S. Geological Survey and Mid-Continent Oil and Gas that depict that the industry is not the only responsible party.

quote:

---

Oil and Gas companies paid compensation in the form of royalties......and up until recently, the Feds took most of these royalties and kept the majority for their own coffers rather than giving it back to fix what may have been broken.

---

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the suit is limited to the issuance of permits for dredging the canals. Royalties are based off of production, not the creation of canals.

I believe that they were building a bar/restaurant in Jennings. Rumor is that construction stopped due to the owner having health issues.

quote:

---

Anything going on in Baton Rouge for this?

---

I believe that Red Zepplin has some specials.

JP is the owner. I grew up with his family. He is passionate about food and treating his employees well.

The CEO is Paul. He is an Englishman from a town outside of Manchester. Cool dude.

I'm glad that introduced beer and wine. This sets it apart from other sandwich shops, in addition to the unique sandwich choices.

Don't you think that the seniors on this team would enjoy one more chance to play?

Josh (owner of Street Breads) has been looking for a location in BR for nearly a year and finally found the right spot. Sandwiches are great.

The responses to your questions would lead me to think that LSU was worthy of being in the best non-BCS bowl possible.

quote:

---

-the way we played ?

---

Debatable. You would have to follow LSU as a fan or local reporter to understand how well LSU played given the loss of starters and developing a QB, all the while playing in a league that had 6 teams finish in the top 10 in the BCS. Bowl selection committee members probably don't watch every game, and more than likely base their decisions on highlights only.

quote:

---

-who we lost to ?

---

This plays into LSU's favor. We lost to the #2 and #3 BCS teams by a total of 12 points. Impressive part of the resume.

quote:

---

-Johnny Football?

---

Of course. This fact plays in favor of Texas A & M compared to every other 10 win SEC team. The guy is exciting to watch, which plays into your other question: tv ratings.

quote:

---

-national perception of our coach?

---

Plays into LSU's favor. The national perception of Les Miles is one of the greatest selling points to a bowl committee. The guy is likable to non-LSU fans, and respected for keeping LSU at such a high level of competition on a yearly basis. Rarely does he have a down year, i.e. 2008 and 2009. LSU has never been with the likes of Notre Dame, Michigan, Alabama, etc. for the better part of college football history. Now, we are always a part of the national conversation, thanks to the a good run by the last 2 coaches at LSU.

quote:

---

-tv ratings

---

LSU is a top-5 program over the last 10 years. Outside of Heisman Trophy candidates competing for other teams, LSU has no problem drawing favorable TV ratings.

quote:

---

-the way we played in last year's bowl ?

---

Outside of some LSU fans who can't get over one game, nobody remembers or cares what happened in one game. The only thing non-LSU fans remember and care about is the name of the winning team. I'm sure that a bowl committee member looks at the overall history of bowl play during the last 10 years and/or during the current coach's tenure, all of which is impressive.

This must be Mr. Sonnier who owned Peggy's Superette in the 90's. He eventually went over to help Peto's in its beginning.