Up The Mainstream

I always listen to the radio when I'm driving. On a recent morning, as I was dropping my son off at school I caught a story on NPR's Morning Edition that was trying to draw contrasts between Clinton and Obama. Featured in this story were two Youngstown Ohio women. A 21-year-old college co-ed and a 40-something social studies teacher. The college woman was a staunch Obama supporter and the social studies teacher was just as dedicated to Clinton. In a way it was a microcosm of the race, the young idealistic person in favor of the charismatic Obama and the experienced older person favoring the experienced Clinton.

The social studies teacher was very articulate and able to readily identify the qualities in Clinton at the foundation of her support. The young person was not readily able to recite talking points and expressed herself more in relation to her emotions. Had this been a debate, the younger woman would have fared poorly against her elder.

As I think about it, I question NPR's judgement in pitting these two together for contrast with the younger person being so obviously out of her depth. At the same time I see legitimacy in it because it does represent, accurately I think, large segments of the two candidates respective supporters.

The story for me was very useful, because in hearing the younger woman flounder, I was able to come to some personal conclusions about why I support Obama. After over seven years of a President who in my opinion is severely lacking in character, intelligence, judgement and leadership. He's little more than a smirking, swaggering John Wayne wannabe. John McCain could be an improvement, but he's going to owe so much to the Republican's conservative base by the time he's elected, that we'll never be free of the sucking black hole that has been the Bush administration. For me Barack Obama is like a breath of fresh air to a suffocating man.

For the older woman I mentioned above, the main reason for her to favor Clinton over Obama was the difference in experience between the two. That's tough to argue and it may end up being the deciding factor for many, as the primaries and the whims of the Superdelegates unfold. On the other hand, if voting for experience means electing someone who owes everything to the status quo, then I am left with skepticism the size of Bill Gate's bank balance. This country needs change, not status quo.

This would normally be the "bash Hillary" paragraph, but I will refrain since there's probably an even chance that I'll have to vote for her. Instead I'll take this in a more positive direction and say why I have come to favor Obama.

My friend Mike Hawkins, a fellow "yellow dog Democrat" and the bearer of one one of the most astute political minds I have ever known, refers to Obama as being, "an empty suit." As one who loves the english language and appreciates a nice succinct and descriptive turn of phrase, I am struck by this reference. Given Mike's proclivity toward good old fashioned Democrat politics, I am not the least bit surprised that he feels this way. At the same time, as our discussion of the candidates has continued, I can't help but notice that Mike seems pretty nervous about the slipping away of his favorite candidate's chances of becoming President.

In my free analysis (worth every penny!) I see two phenomena occurring. First, people in general are very concerned about the direction this country is heading on many different levels. Clinton represents the status quo and people like myself who don't tend to put too fine a point on it, do not want "more of the same." Second, and this is where I make a giant leap of faith, Obama is charismatic and inspirational. What he allegedly lacks in experience can be more than made up by giving our country some fresh approaches that are not tainted by the "politics of divisiveness" and fear of how it will play in corporate boardrooms or on K Street. I believe that Obama's ability to motivate people through his inspirational oratory and charismatic presence will translate into the kind of leadership this country has needed for a very long time. So to me it's not "an empty suit" I think of it as "an inflatable suit."

Please join me in supporting Barack Obama, the local organization is lively and enthusiastic and like me, they believe. Contact our local coordinator Kimberly Durso at kimberlydursok@yahoo.com and find out how you can be part of this bright future for America.

Posted by Dan Carter at 07:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It seems like it has been forever since I've posted and I still owe part three of my "Why do Conservatives Under Value our Freedom" series. In all honesty my work and other personal, professional, political and community involvements have me struggling to keep up. Oh, and I've had that lousy upper respiratory crud that has been going around. I have been thinking about the blog quite a bit however, and I look forward in the future to sharing some of the adventures upon which I am embarking.

One of my top priorities of late has been working with my 17 year old son on organizing his Eagle Scout Project so that he can earn Boy Scouts' highest rank of Eagle before his birthday in May. He'll be making 40 Barn Owl Boxes for the Nature Conservancy. I'll be writing much more about this in the very near future. Maybe YOU would like to sponsor a barn owl box? It's a great project!

I am also a member of the Board of Directors of KZFR 90.1 Community Radio. Next month I will have the privilege of attending the National Federation of Community Broadcasters convention in Atlanta GA. I am a relatively new convert to community radio and I look forward to learning a lot and returning even more enthusiastic and motivated than I am. I also plan to blog here about the conference as well. KZFR's Spring Membership Drive is coming very soon...tune in and give us money!

Another exciting thing is the Democratic contest for the presidential nomination. I was very impressed with the way the Obama organization came together before the California Primary and I've become an Obama believer in that process. It is my intention to throw my hat in the ring to become an Obama delegate from the 2nd Congressional District, so I'll be writing more about that as the time for action draws near.

There's definitely more to come...thanks for checking out my blog.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Much of the following supports some of the points I've been trying to make in my "Why do Conservatives..." series. It's from the Center for American Progress and available at:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport?elq=C8C4D61144F94A7AB2F40EB5E52120A7

Playing The Fear Card Again

In late 2005, President Bush acknowledged that his administration had authorized a secret warrantless domestic surveillance program. The administration's program operated in violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment restriction against "unreasonable searches" without a warrant. It also violated of federal law -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- which makes it a crime to conduct electronic surveillance, except as "authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." For the past two years, Congress has sought to rein in Bush's reckless disregard of the Constitution and the law. In early Aug. 2007, Congress unwisely passed a temporary expansion of FISA, called the Protect America Act (PAA), which provided virtually unchecked power to the administration to spy on American communications without warrants. Tomorrow, the unnecessary and dangerous powers given to the administration by Congress six months ago are set to expire.

Now, as Congress and the administration wrangle over how to resolve their differences on surveillance legislation, Bush is reacting by spouting fear. Yesterday, he warned Congress that if it does not greatly expand the president's powers to spy, then the country faces terror strikes that would make 9/11 "pale by comparison." Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) added that Congress's unwillingness to cater to Bush's demands means that "there is probably joy throughout the terrorist cells throughout the world."

LET IT EXPIRE: Intelligence experts concede that very little will actually change Saturday if the PAA is allowed to expire. "Expiration of the current Protect America Act would not mean an immediate end to wiretapping."  Every spying authorization already entered under the law "can remain in effect for 12 months from the date it was issued." As Richard Clarke, Bush's own former counterterrorism adviser, wrote recently in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year." Moreover, new authorizations would be permitted through the underlying FISA law, which permits emergency surveillance of terrorists as long as a warrant is applied for within 72 hours. Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies, added, "If the government learns of new individuals apparently plotting terrorist activities, it can immediately surveil such individuals -- whether they are here or calling here from abroad -- by obtaining a FISA court order." Lastly, the administration can continue to use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist.

NO FEAR: President Franklin Roosevelt's cautionary admonition that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" remains particularly instructive in the current debate over surveillance. "For this president, fear is an easier political tactic than compromise," wrote Clarke. "With FISA, he is attempting to rattle Congress into hastily expanding his own executive powers at the expense of civil liberties and constitutional protections." Earlier this week, Bush and his conservative allies in Congress thwarted the passage of a 21-day extension of the PAA. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) explained, "The President and House Republicans cannot have it both ways, simultaneously arguing that the PAA is essential to national security and also engineering the defeat of an extension of it. The consequences for inaction are their responsibility." In a terse and direct letter to Bush, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) said, "I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear. We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won."

PUTTING TELEPHONE COMPANIES FIRST: The biggest sticking point in negotiations between Congress and the President over surveillance is whether to grant retroactive amnesty to telecommunications companies that broke the law and cooperated with the administration's illegal requests. Caroline Frederickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's legislative office, urged Congress not to "give the phone companies a 'get out of jail free' card. If the companies really 'did the right thing' as the president said, then they have nothing to fear from going to court." Bush has declared he will veto any bill that does not include retroactive immunity. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) pointed out that "the president has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. ... So if we take the president at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies."

Posted by Dan Carter at 09:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This was interesting reading to me, so I thought I'd share....

Poetic justice: Limbaugh tries to tear GOP apart
By Eric Boehlert
Created Feb 13 2008 - 10:54am

Rush Limbaugh, the marauding Frankenstein's monster of the Republican Party, is on the loose again, causing all kinds of political damage with his signature off-balance swings. But as has become his custom recently, the pain from Limbaugh's rampage is being felt by his creators -- his enablers -- inside the GOP.

Limbaugh and the rest of his get-John McCain brain trust [1] -- Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, and campus instigator Ann Coulter -- have been tripping over themselves to get in front of a microphone (preferably a television one) to denounce the Republican Party's presumptive nominee and to suggest that perhaps conservatives should even vote Democratic come November.

After years of watching Limbaugh and his various band of midnight riders within the Republican Noise Machine [2] launch countless, hateful crusades against liberals and Democrats, it's extraordinarily satisfying to watch the Republican Party leadership discover what it feels like when Limbaugh sets his venomous, factually challenged [3] sights on their own front-runner.

For progressives, the sprawling GOP brawl is what blogger TRex [4] would call a schadenfreude sundae. What could be more enjoyable than watching McCain get bogged down in the far-right swamp? Answer: Watching a handful of right-wing pundits come to the belated conclusion that Limbaugh is a dunce. Or, as one Weekly Standard blogger put it last week [5], the Limbaugh-led response to McCain was "unhinged -- and at times spectacularly disgraceful." And Dinesh D'Souza [6] concluded, that, yes, Limbaugh is an "egomaniac" who "has grown accustomed to conservative bigwigs worshiping at the Shrine of Rush." (Truth is, Limbaugh's not that well liked [7] among Republicans.)

Really? Limbaugh is spreading misinformation? He's wallowing in demagoguery while bordering on megalomania? He and his pals appear to be far more interested in the number of media mentions [8] they rack up than they do in advancing the conservative movement? Ah, what a tangled web the GOP weaves. Wonder how McCain and the Republican Party minions enjoy following behind Limbaugh's broadcast each weekday with a bucket and shovel, cleaning up the mess spread all over the floor. Enjoy!

But this is what Republicans created. They wanted Limbaugh to be an attack dog and to chew up and spit out his/the party's opponents. They wanted him to label Democrats as traitors ("What's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country today"), to label them abhorrent and mentally deranged. They wanted Limbaugh to ignore any semblance of decency when demonizing the other side. Indeed, there has been virtually no offensive line that Limbaugh has crossed that Republicans have not dutifully justified or explained away.

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated [9] members of the U.S. armed forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

The pats on the back came from presidential contender Fred Thompson [10] and Senate Republican Conference chairman Jon Kyl (AZ), and House Minority Leader John Boehner (OH) as well as his No. 2, Roy Blunt [11] (MO), along with fellow Reps. Mike Pence (IN), Scott Garrett (NJ). Mean Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN) supported legislation that commended [12]

Limbaugh following his "phony soldiers" crack. Rep. Eric Cantor (VA) even unveiled a Stand With Rush [13] e-petition, urging "conservatives around the country" to fight for Limbaugh.

Oh, and let's not forget Mitt Romney's reaction to the "phony soldiers" controversy, which was priceless. (Romney was the candidate Limbaugh championed as the one true conservative in this year's Republican race.) Romney flip-flopped! Here [14] he is momentarily chastising Limbaugh's comments. And here [15] Romney is, just days later, as he "rushes to the defense of Rush Limbaugh." (And Republicans used to claim that candidate Al Gore had no moral compass?)

Meanwhile, it really was rather sad to watch former Sen. Bob Dole last week write a letter [16] to Limbaugh trying to reason with the talk-show host about whether candidate McCain was sufficiently conservative. Or when McCain himself suggested that the talk show hosts simply "calm down." Or when Bud McFarlane, former national security adviser to President Reagan, took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal over the weekend to urge Rush and his angry pack to "be rational."

Rational? Where have these Republicans been for the last decade? The Noise Machine doesn't do rational. Was Limbaugh being "rational" when he toasted [17] photos of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as "good old American pornography"? Was Malkin being rational last year when she attempted to Swift Boat a traumatically injured 12-year-old boy [18]? Was Coulter being rational ... well, ever?

Sorry, GOP grown-ups. If there's one thing the Republican Noise Machine is allergic to, it's reason. And decency, and respect, and rational behavior.

And besides, why is it left to retired Republican graybeards like Dole and McFarlane to try to broker peace with the Limbaugh crowd? McCain, the party's presumptive nominee, is being savaged by a corral of radio talk-show hosts every day, and yet the silence among Republican elected officials has been deafening. Why? Because they're too afraid to stick up for their own candidate, too afraid Limbaugh and his wannabes will try burn somebody else at the stake.

I don't think progressives could have choreographed a better media meltdown if we tried.

Fact is, every time Limbaugh causes a controversy these days, the Democratic Party's political fortunes rise just a little bit -- like when he's treating McCain like a bum, or degrading phony soldiers, or mocking [19] actor Michael J. Fox for allegedly faking the symptoms of his crippling Parkinson's disease while appearing in a Democratic-sponsored campaign ad.

What's so spectacular for the home team is that Limbaugh's crusade to demolish McCain stems from the radical right's fervent desire to cleanse the Republican Party of those who are deemed to be insufficiently pure in their conservative beliefs. And it's not just the candidates. Limbaugh has been clear that his deep disdain for McCain is driven by the fact that he might attract voters in the fall -- the wrong voters -- who do not adhere to the radical right's litmus test of right and wrong.

What Limbaugh and company are doing with their diatribes is launching political correctness into the stratosphere, and in the process herding voters toward the Democratic camp.

The best part? The whole crusade has been a colossal flop. On the eve of the Super Tuesday primary, lots of cogs in the Republican Noise Machine demanded that their readers and listeners embrace Mitt Romney.

Instead, McCain and Mike Huckabee -- the other GOP candidate deemed totally unworthy by the mighty Limbaugh -- pretty much ran the table and shoved the anointed one, Romney, right out of the race. I'd suggest the stunning failure to move the needle even an inch among self-identified Republican voters represented a nice punctuation point on the Republican Noise Machine's collapse, which, naturally, has closely mirrored President Bush's downward spiral. (The same post-Bush tremors are being felt at Fox News; read about their ratings woes here [20].)

Why did the get-McCain gambit fail so miserably? Maybe Republican voters saw through the transparent attacks. After all, Limbaugh himself wrote a column [21] for The Wall Street Journal during the 2004 presidential campaign in which he commended McCain for being among the "unabashed and unashamed advocates of conservative principles and policies" in his speech at the Republican convention.

And if Limbaugh's uncontrollable disdain for McCain is based on that candidate's allegedly leftward drift on the issues, then why didn't Limbaugh try to run Rudy Giuliani out of the race? (Not that Rudy needed any help.) Giuliani's history of supporting abortion rights, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay rights makes McCain look like Ronald Reagan's long-lost brother.

And I'm sorry, but Romney as the conservative true believer? Baystaters must have spit up their Summer Shack [22] clam chowder when they heard that line. In a manic attempt to veer right for his White House run, Romney flip-flopped [23] on a buffet of supposedly core Republican issues, such as immigration reform, abortion, gun control, tax cuts, and gay rights. (Go here [24] to watch Romney perform one of the purest flip-flops ever captured on tape.)

More likely, Limbaugh is just wildly out of touch with the Republican Party. During President Bush's radical pro-war tenure, the right-wing talkers and bloggers convinced themselves they represented the mainstream -- the majority -- of the GOP. But they don't. They represent the radical CPAC wing [25] of the GOP. And it's a shrinking minority.

I just hope the McCain Crazies keep it up. Their unhinged efforts perfectly capture the state of today's conservative movement. For instance, at one point when Limbaugh was ranting against the Arizona senator on his radio show, a caller asked whether he thought McCain would pick Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as his running mate. Limbaugh sniffed [26] that "Lindsey Graham is certainly close enough to [McCain] to die of anal poisoning."

A Limbaugh pal told [27] the New York Daily News that the host was simply "using a time-honored synonym for 'brown-nosing.' " But as the paper reported, "[I]f you Google the term, the only people who seem to be using it are proprietors of porn sites. "

And then there was Laura Ingraham, the oxymoronic thinking person's right-wing radio host, who became so unnerved at the prospect of a McCain nomination that she suggested [28] that some despondent conservatives would turn themselves into "suicide voters" and cast a ballot for a Democrat in November rather than vote for McCain. (Charles Hurt, the D.C. bureau chief for the New York Post, made the same unhinged analogy [29].)

Suicide voters and anal poisonings, all in the name of destroying the Republican nominee from within. Hey, GOP, that's quite a Noise Machine you've constructed. Now good luck trying to dismantle it.
_______

About author
A senior fellow at Media Matters for America, and a former senior writer for Salon, Boehlert's first book, "Lapdogs: How The Press Rolled Over for Bush," was published in May. He can be reached at eboehlert@aol.com [30]

Posted by Dan Carter at 02:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While writing this I was seated in Dr. Kenneth Lange’s waiting room while my son was having his teeth cleaned. Dr. Lange is definitely part of the local conservative establishment and his wife Sheryl, was once appointed to the Chico City Council to finish the term of a conservative council person, Bill Johnston who passed away in office. I bring this up as an example of how our lives in this community tend to be intertwined, and how fate seems to toss us together irrespective of our political views no matter how staunch they may be. I could recount numerous examples.

By the way, Dr. Lange is the best dentist I’ve ever known and I am grateful for his professionalism and skill when he plies his trade in my toothy orifice. We’ve never discussed politics, local or otherwise, but I’d be very surprised if we saw eye to eye on very many things.

I was flattered by the comment of Rainman in response to the first installment of this series. He was correct in his accusation that I was painting all conservatives with the same brush and I appreciate that he did not take my comments personally. I was reminded of discussions I have had with my two brothers, both of whom I would characterize as conservatives. My older brother tends to dismiss me as being “misguided.” My younger brother mostly parrots Rush Limbaugh. They both remind me of something Bush said in 2001 when he was asked to explain himself, “I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right.”

Which brings me to the body of the second part of “Why do Conservatives Hate our Freedom?” Recently I came upon an article in the UC Berkeley News, published in 2003, about a study entitled, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Published in the American Psychological Association’s “Psychological Bulletin.”

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Although some folks might dismiss the credibility of anything with the name “Berkeley” attached to it as lacking the veracity of a big foot sighting reported by the Daily Kos, I beg your countenance to read the article, it‘s very interesting and it isn’t some, “wacko liberal hit piece from planet Berkeley.”

The study, according to the article, is based on, “50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism,” and concludes that, “at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure and terror management.” That’s all quite a bit to try and wrap around, so for my purpose I’ll focus on the “resistance to change,” and the “tolerance of inequality.”

As the cliché states, “9/11 changed everything.” After effectively stealing the 2000 election, 9/11 actually provided a goldmine of opportunity for the, “compassionate conservatives,” to steer the country away from a moderate political and economic course into an ideological hard turn to the right. We were attacked. People were angry and afraid. The analogy to Pearl Harbor, however ludicrous, was fueled by the mainstream media and dominated popular rhetoric and anyone who disagreed was framed as being supporters of the enemy.

So what about conservatives’, “resistance to change?” This is where the study seems to get it wrong, or at least failed to get it completely right. Turns out it could be, “resistance to some kinds of change,” or maybe even, “resistance to anything but reactionary change.” I think it has much more to do with, “tolerance for inequality,” being the trump concept for conservatives. Evidence for this is steeped in the Neo-Conservative “Project for a New American Century,” and the concept of “American Exceptionalism.” It’s just not that tough of a stretch to blame about every bad thing that is happening in this country in the last seven years, from our slide to plutocracy to the imminent recession, and most anything else you can think of, on this core conservative characteristic of “tolerance for inequality.”

In a response to part one of my posts on this subject, Rainman provided his take on liberals and justification for conservative tolerance for inequality, “Most modern liberals, on the other hand, have focused liberalism down to the fervent pursuit of equality above all other things. There can be no higher virtue to a liberal than "non-discrimination." And, despite Jefferson's proclamation that “all men are created equal" and entitled to certain political rights of which we are all familiar; the truth is that humans are not all equal. They possess differing abilities, affected by intelligence, culture, nurturing, etc. Therefore there can be no equality of outcome for all people, in spite of our best political efforts to the contrary.”

Just as I am guilty of over generalizing about conservatives, Rainman’s opinion about “modern liberals” paints with a similar brush. What is telling about Rainman’s opinion is that he seems perfectly comfortable and resigned to the concept of inequality and even has a tidy rationale to back it up. As the words of a self described “conservative,” I think he supports the point I’m trying to make.

I am certain that pure equality is neither practical nor achievable because the concept runs contrary to the laws of nature. Holding this belief pretty much rules me out as a pure Socialist I suppose, but I can’t help but experience pangs of pathos when I see so much bounty and opportunity that is denied to many in this country simply because of unlucky birth. So for me it becomes a moral question and a problem that deserves work and energy toward a solution.

Thomas Jefferson probably didn’t invent the concept of all men being equal, but he forever ensconced it in our national conscience when he included the phrase in the Declaration of Independence. The fact that the word “men” lacked a definition at the time that included the slaves that he owned or his wife or daughters, does not diminish the ideal the phrase embodies in modern time.

The people who founded this nation are rightfully considered among the most courageous in human history. They willingly risked life and treasure for a chance at a kind of freedom that no people had ever had before them. At first the chances of success in their pursuit of the ideals of freedom and equality were so tenuous as to be considered nothing more than an experiment. Somehow it held together and has withstood every threat, internal and external for about the last 225 years.

Those of you who are clever with math will notice that I have excluded the last seven years from the calculation in the previous sentence. In the shadow of the “War on Terror,” the conservative Bush administration has been conducting a war on the Constitution, that, “goddamned piece of paper,” and in turn a war on our freedom. The conservative penchant for “tolerance of inequality,” has been projected in everything from fixing federal elections to no-bid contracts, to abuse of executive power, just to name a few of the transgressions.

Why do conservatives hate our freedom? Well they don’t really, but because of their tolerance for inequality and the application of this guiding rationale, they at least, in spite of lip service given, put less value on freedom equally distributed, or at worse seek to diminish and pervert the concept in order to achieve goals deemed of greater value.

In part three, having expended the shock value in the use of the word, “hate” the final installment will be titled, “Why do Conservatives Under Value our Freedom?” and I’ll explore another angle on the Disorderly Events Ordinance and the associated political ramifications.

Posted by Dan Carter at 09:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Enjoy these two short blurbs from the Center for American Progress...the first about Oil Company Profits and the second on how they spend some of those profits.

ECONOMY -- BIG OIL COMPANIES ANNOUNCE RECORD PROFITS: Last week, Royal Dutch Shell announced that profits for the company soared to $26.7 billion in 2007, a record-breaking figure for a European company. The next day, The New York Times reported that "Exxon Mobil's performance last year was a blowout." The oil giant revealed last Friday "that it beat its own record for the highest profits ever recorded by any company, with net income rising 3 percent to $40.6 billion." Exxon Mobil's sales exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries. From the beginning of President Bush's tenure in office, the combined profits of the big five oil companies have skyrocketed from just under $40 billion in 2001 to $120 billion in 2007. As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz recently noted in Vanity Fair, "The soaring price of oil is clearly related to the Iraq war. The issue is not whether to blame the war for this but simply how much to blame it." 

RADICAL RIGHT -- GLOBAL WARMING DENIER GROUP HOSTING CONFERENCE FUNDED BY BIG OIL: From March 2-4, right-wing climate change-denial group The Heartland Institute will host what it calls a "Climate Skeptics" Conference. Heartland President Joseph Blast boasted that his conference would feature climate change deniers: "This is their chance to speak out." The online poster for the conference declares, "Global Warming is not a crisis!" Heartland's environmental stance is completely out of the mainstream, as the debate over human contribution to global warming is long over. Even as some top conservative presidential candidates recently endorsed California's effort to reduce auto greenhouse gas emissions, Heartland ridiculed the idea, calling California and its allies "environmental extremists." Heartland's extreme anti-environmentalism no doubt originates from its supporters. Between 1998 and 2005, oil giant Exxon Mobil gave nearly $800,000 to Heartland. The organization's board of directors includes Thomas Walton, Director of Economic Policy at General Motors, and James L. Johnson, formerly senior economist for oil company Amoco Corporation. As RealClimate notes, "Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one."

Posted by Dan Carter at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)