Debunking the bunk on Al Gore's speech

Well, the reception from Al Gore's speech yesterday has been pretty predictable in many ways. (A short clip from the full version of his speech is above - and it's the best part, where he challenges America to have 100 percent renewable energy within 10 years.) Those who oppose him for political reasons are still whining about his electricity bill while ignoring the real problems facing our country. After I blogged about Gore's speech yesterday, I sent out an e-mail to a bunch of people, imploring them to at least listen to Gore's speech with an open mind. Here are two very different responses (my comments follow each one).

Here's the predictable, negative, right-wing ideological tripe in an e-mail from an unidentified conservative who I know through someone else:

If Clinton hadn't vetoed the bill to drill in ANWR back in 1994, we wouldn't have such dependency on foreign oil and we wouldn't have the high gas prices we have now. I've written to my congressmen to 'Drill here, drill now'. We need to keep gas prices down while exploring cost effective alternatives. Food prices are soaring due to the regulations "forcing" the use of ethanol (ever notice how much stuff uses corn syrup?).

How can you take Algore seriously when he's the biggest hypocrite out there? The money paid for "Carbon Credits" goes to a company he owns. And his own home uses 20 times the national average in energy consumption (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/Story?id=2906888&page=1)

(silly you...you know I have a soap box too....and I remember the Carter years and the misery index and I fear for our country (and my hard earned income) if a Socialist is elected president :-( )

Hmm - where to start...

First, I'm actually pretty amused that some conservatives can actually find a way to tie 2008 fuel prices to President Clinton. And just when I thought the Blame Clinton fad had faded. How silly of me. Conservatives have spent the last eight years blaming Bill Clinton for just about everything bad, all while George W. Bush has been driving America into the ground on many fronts. I'm happy and proud that Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling. The idea that ANWR can alleviate our energy problem is a farce and a sham, perpetuated by those on the right who think that a little more oil from our modest (at best) oil reserves will lower prices. WRONG. ANWR, even by generous estimates, would only provide a fraction of oil that American uses on a daily basis (approx. 21 million barrels per day, as of 2008). To wit, according to a statistical report from the U.S. Department of Energy:

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.

What's all this mean? That we still need foreign oil, and lots of it, to function as we are right now with very little mass transit options, few explored alternative energy sources, and virtually no other automobile options, save a smattering of hybrids that are hitting the market, which still rely on oil to run.

There are a few more things that conservatives aren't considering, and that our corporate media (and Faux News) isn't telling us. One, has anyone considered that if we do start drilling on our outer continental shelf and in ANWR, OPEC could simply reduce production by the same amount, thereby keeping prices high? What or who is to stop them, other than begging by our politicians? The answer is, nothing, unless a Republican president wants to invade another country in the Middle East. (How much oil does Iran have again?)

Anyone who thinks that OPEC will sit on its collective hands and not lower production while we drill for more oil, thereby lowering the price of oil, raise your hand. Now go sit in the corner and put on a dunce cap.

Two, it amazes me that people think if we start drilling tomorrow that gas prices will magically come down. It ain't happenin', capt'n. These people (like the e-mailer above) who write their elected legislators demanding that we "drill here, drill now" don't realize that it's only going to line the pockets of Big Oil and the politicians they support (and we know who most of them are: G-O-P), and also destroy the environment in the process. It's just one more example on a tragically long list of ways that Republicans convince people to vote against their economic (and environmental) self interests.

Big Oil is NOT friendly to the environment, and there are many, many examples, most notably the Exxon Valdez. Sickeningly enough, ExxonMobile has fought in the courts tooth and nail the people whose livelihoods the company destroyed, refusing to make adequate restitution. So, should we open up a pristine refuge for Big Oil to come in and rape the land? How about, NO!?! No way. Big Oil has proven time and time again to be environmentally unfriendly (to be kind), yet now it claims it can extract oil from ANWR "in environmentally sensitive ways." (A line that President Bush happily pimps on TV, over and over and over.) That just sounds good for the political argument to turn our land over to Big Oil to be raped and pillaged.

Three, I seldom hear this argument voiced, but it's our oil, and by our I mean citizens of the United States - it's not Big Oil's. Currently, the oil companies pay the U.S. Government 12.5 percent of the oil's market value to get it out of the ground. If a law does get passed allowing Big Oil access to ANWR & the outer continental shelf, that rate should be doubled, and the money should go entirely toward development of alternative energy sources. What's more, a law should be passed imposing strict fines on the oil companies should they have an oil spill. What a novel concept - the polluter pays, not the taxpayer. In the last 30 years (since Reagan took office) - it's been the taxpayers who have largely been paying for corporate environmental disasters, not the polluter. That's an outrage of Biblical proportions.

As far as Al Gore and his electricity bill, I'm not going to waste a whole lot more time on it here, as I've blogged about this before, but I will repeat a few things (Note: it's "Al Gore," not "Algore," an elementary smear perpetuated by drug addict Rush Limbaugh, the uneducated Sean Hannity, and the asinine Newt Gingrich. It's sort of like saying the "Democrat Party" in lieu of the "Democratic Party," a McCarthy-era smear every bit as stupid and childish):

1. Gore has publicly stated that he purchases renewable energy and has taken many steps to reduce his carbon footprint, including putting up solar panels on his mansion in Tennessee, and I believe him. Hey, if the guy has one solar panel, it's one more than the White House has. But, the White House DID have solar panels when Jimmy Carter was president, but Reagan had them taken down. How stupid does that look, in hindsight?

2. The entire faux Gore Electricity Bill "story" has been endlessly flogged and pimped by a group called the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a right-wing funded group that has been out to smear Gore for years now, specifically the day after his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won two Oscars. But, I'm sure the timing was entirely coincidental, right? Anyway, read more about the myths behind Gore's electricity bill Here and Here.

3. Quite frankly, I don't care if Gore criss-crosses the globe in a 747 by himself - he's done more to raise awareness about global warming in the last two years than George W. Bush (or his father) did in three presidential administrations.

4. It's tragically hilarious that President Bush went out of his way on television a few days ago to say that he would NOT encourage Americans to conserve energy, that it's "not his place to do that." Unreal. Like it would be a bad thing for the president to set an example for the American people. Then again, why start now?

5. One more thing about oil spills - the right has perpetuated the myth total lie that there were no oil spills during Hurricane Katrina. I will write more about this in a bit - it warrants a separate post, but it's absolutely, 100 percent FALSE. This is yet another blatant example of the right-wing media's strategy of repeating a lie over and over, hoping that people will believe it if they hear it often enough. Sell that crap to the tourists, because I ain't buyin' it.

To be fair, I will say this about the e-mail above - she brings up two points that I sort of agree with, so there is some common ground.

First, ethanol is NOT the answer - I totally agree. Burning food for fuel is a monumentally stupid idea. But, it's not Gore who has been pimping ethanol, it's been President Bush. Spend 15 minutes on YouTube and you can find plenty of Bush speeches where he's talking so favorably about ethanol, you'd think we have enough corn to power the entire planet.

Second, I've never been a big fan of carbon credits, but I don't yet know too much about it. However, I'm not keen on giving a corporation my money, with which it promises to "plant a tree" or something of the like. I'll make my own decisions about how I help the environment, thanks very much. Hey, I may be a big fan of Al Gore (notice the spelling), but I'm not slavishly devoted to every idea he has. Just most of them. And I'm hearing more ideas and bold goals come out of his mouth about the environment than I've heard from Bush in 7+ years, but I'm repeating myself. (But that point bears repeating, to be sure.)

However, if Gore chooses to invest in a carbon credit company, so what? I'm sure he's invested in a great deal of "green" companies. How is that a bad thing? People who accuse him of promoting green ideas because he owns stock in some innovative green companies are missing the point, and are stuck in a Rush Limbaugh-like drug-induced haze, where being critical of Al Gore is supposed to be the right's answer to his innovative ideas, as well as our energy problems.

Speaking of investments, I guess the conservative e-mailer above has never heard of Halliburton, a company headed by Dick Cheney until he became vice president, and also the same company that's received no-bid contract after no-bid contract in Iraq. (Also a company that recently moved its world headquarters to the Middle East, away from prying eyes in the U.S. Anyone care to bet how much cash Cheney is lavished with from the company once he leaves office?) Halliburton has made hundreds of millions during this administration, due in no small part to its connections at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

And finally, I got a kick out of this line from the e-mail above: I remember the Carter years and the misery index. ... (Read: Hey, you stupid kid, I know more than you because I've been around longer.) Please - get a grip. What's more, turn off Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Lielly and their ilk and get some real news. Here's a few recent news items that this person may have missed: Consumer prices jumped 1.2 percent in June, the biggest one-month jump since another Republican recession, circa 1982. And a recent Washington Post poll revealed that consumer confidence is at a 16-year low, the lowest since 1992, another year of a Republican recession. But hey, let's not facts get in the way.

I also laugh and laugh at Repubes bringing up Carter whenever they get the chance, including McCain, who impressed no one with the witless remark, "Obama keeps saying I'm running for a third Bush term, but it sounds like he's running for Jimmy Carter's second term." Funny how McCain never mentions the eight years of President Clinton, which were mostly a time of economic growth. If Jimmy Carter's all McCain's got, he's going to have the look of a candidate who's going to get his ass kicked this November.

I'll bring up the other e-mail shortly in a separate post.

CEO funnier than Ford's "profits"

In case you didn't catch this story, this is Ford CEO Alan Mulally's idea of a joke. He told a room full of reporters that President Bush nearly blew himself up for plugging an electrical cord into a hydrogen tank on an electric/hydrogen hybrid car prototype that was brought to the White House for a photo-op.

Too bad it wasn't true.

The best part was his rationalization - he saw the joke on Jimmy Kimmel Live.

One would think the CEO of Ford, which lost $12.7 billion last year, would have better things to do than trying to be something he's not - funny.

One thing he is, though, is rich; he reportedly received over $20 million in compensation from Ford in 2006 for working four months.

Ford is in serious trouble, which is no laughing matter.

According to the Associate Press,

In December 2006, Ford announced that it would mortgage all assets, including factories and equipment, office property, intellectual property (patents and trademarks), and its stakes in subsidiaries, all to raise $23.4 billion in cash. The secured credit line is expected to finance product development during the restructuring through 2009, as the company expects to burn through $17 billion in cash before turning a profit. These drastic actions are unprecedented in the Ford's 103-year history.

Call me crazy, but that's a lot of scratch. One would think that a chief executive genuinely interested in saving his company would take some sort of pay cut, or at least defer part of his exorbitant compensation. I wonder how Mulally can look blue collar workers in the eye after receiving that much largess in light of the worst fiscal year in corporate history.

I wonder if Bush whispered anything in Mulally's ear about his compensation.

I'll spare you the suspense, or the digging. I'd bet what I'm worth that Bush probably high-fived him.

Who among us could do anything but laugh when Bush, during one of his trademark b.s. photo-ops, looked into the camera with a straight face and said, "companies need to carefully consider what they pay executives."

I guess, by that, he means every company except Halliburton, which gave Dick a $20 million severance package in 2000; or Harken Energy, whose board President Bush served on in the late 1980s. One week before the company announced an enormous loss of nearly $25 million, Bush sold over 200,000 shares of the company at $4 a share, netting him nearly $1 million.

Halliburton says Dubai-Bye

Talk about rape and run. When, oh when, will we ever learn?

It seems that Halliburton, né Dick Cheney’s cash cow, is taking its $11 billion in no-bid U.S. government contracts and opening a headquarters in Dubai. Just how stupid does this company think U.S. taxpayers are? Hmm, I wonder how much corporate oversight and taxes Halliburton can avoid by having an overseas headquarters?

If you aren’t completely and totally outraged by this, drive to the nearest passport office, turn in your U.S. passport and renounce your citizenship now.

I’m not sure what’s worse – Halliburton winning about $11 billion in business from the U.S. government; the company awarding Dick Cheney $34 million in severance; or the company’s decision to pull up stakes, potentially causing the loss of many U.S. jobs. These slime balls have zero shame, and they should be made to pay for it.

I saw about 18 shades of red when I read this story. There really is no shame in the corporate pilferers who run Halliburton. However, even this late in the game of his presidency, President Bush could do the right thing, or Congress could force his hand to – and that would be to cancel each and every governmental contract on the books with Halliburton.

I got these next two paragraphs (and the title for this post) from The Freeway Blogger's Blog - a political activist who knows his stuff and who doesn't appear to go off half-cocked. Let me give you part of his take on this whole mess:

You may not remember this, but when Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton in 1999, he was falling all over himself for the privilege of doing business with Saddam Hussein, going around the UN embargoes via foreign subsidiaries Ingersoll-Dresser and Dresser Pump. Again, this is 1999, long after Mr. Hitler-with-a-bigger-moustache had invaded Kuwait, gassed the Kurds and filled southern Iraq with the mass-graves of 100,000 Shia. And the man who'd become Vice President was all hot n' heavy to do business with him.

The reason you may not remember this story when it broke was that it was all but entirely eclipsed by the firestorm erupting over Al Gore having consulted with someone who advised him to wear earth tones. And that, my friends, is how we got to where we are today.

We should confiscate the passports of Halliburton's senior leadership team, and their families, before they flee the country & before investigations into the company's royal screwing of the American taxpayer are complete.

The Justice Department and SEC are both interested in Halliburton's business practices in Iraq, Kuwait and Nigeria. Its involvement in Iran prior to 2003 should also be investigated, as well as all the lucrative contracts, including wars in the Persian Gulf and Balkans, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq reconstruction and U.S. troop support, and Department of Homeland Security facility construction. That's one long laundry list - one much too long for a company pulling up stakes and high-tailing it to the Middle East.

I’m not holding my breath, but I urge you to write all of your Congressional representatives and President Bush on this important issue as well.

Below is a sample letter that I sent to Senator Robert Casey. As usual, feel free to copy/paste my text to write a letter of your own. If you don't know your Congressional legislators, use the Website on the right side of my blog to find them quickly and easily (Under the title "Get Active!" about 1/3 of the way down the right side).

###

R.J.C.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


March 16, 2007


Senator Bob Casey Jr.
B40C Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3804

Dear Senator Casey:
I recently saw on the news that Halliburton is moving its world headquarters from Houston, Texas to Dubai, which could cost hundreds, if not thousands of Americans their jobs. For a company whose contracts with the U.S. government run into the billions of dollars (many of them no-bid contracts), our government can and should take a stand against this type of irresponsible corporate behavior. In essence, Halliburton is thumbing its nose at one of its largest and most lucrative customers – the American taxpayer.

I realize that companies are free to set up operations where they wish, but our government is also free to take its business wherever and to whomever it wants. In short, contracts that Halliburton has with the U.S. government should become confetti vis-à-vis Enron's financial statements.

Halliburton is openly flouting its disregard for the American taxpayer and the U.S. government (unless you consider a $34 million severance package to Dick Cheney being considerate to our government).

Congress should take swift and immediate action against Halliburton by canceling each and every contract it has with Halliburton. This would send a message to Halliburton and other corporations - if they want to do business with the U.S. government, the least these companies could do is to employ a good number of Americans, as well as maintaining a significant presence in the United States.

In short, I would like to know what you plan to do about Halliburton’s show of gratitude toward America for billions of dollars in contracts. I’ve also written Senator Specter, my House Representative, Robert A. Brady, the leadership of both Houses of Congress and President Bush.

Thanks very much for your time and attention in this important matter, Senator Casey. I look forward to hearing from you.

Warm regards,

RJ

cc:
file
President George W. Bush
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
House Minority Leader John Boehner
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Senator Arlen Specter
U.S. Representative Robert A. Brady

###

I will let all of you know any responses I get from anyone I write to about this issue.

Photo from The Freeway Blogger

Is Iran next?

Will this bumper sticker prove true after all?

There's plenty of talk that it's a strong possibility. I haven't read enough about it yet to write at length, but I certainly will, soon.

You can bet your butt that if we do go to war with Iran, there will be a draft. We absolutely do not have the troops for operations anywhere else. If we do go to war in Iran though, Bush had better schedule the invasion or bombing around American Idol, because can you imagine the civil revolt if Fox broke into Idol programming with news of war?

I sincerely hope that people who constantly say, "I don't care about politics" are reconsidering their position. Because everyone should care, especially now, especially if there's a draft. If the draft is reinstated, you can bet everyone will care, fast.

The bumper sticker above, and many others, are available at CafePress, truly a cool Website. Check it out. I was there today, and they've got a whole menu of great new products.

A quick sample...

I love the one on the left *ahem*, but wouldn't a Cheney/Satan ticket be redundant? Okay, okay, I'm getting a bit carried away, but Dick scares me. Call me crazy, but I pray for the president's health on a daily basis, because heaven help us if Cheney were to become president. I can tell you one thing, though - there would be plenty of high fives at Halliburton headquarters. With a Cheney presidency, the new Hallie corporate slogan would write itself: "A no-bid contract in every pot."

I love this one, too. I kind of miss Tom DeLay, though. It was fun kicking him while he was down. This one would make a great t-shirt. After I sell my old computer monitor, maybe I'll spring for one. My car is about maxed out on bumper stickers. In fact, I may thin out the ranks soon. One of my stickers, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" rings kind of hollow now that he's opted out of the '08 race.

Lastly, I found this one - ITMFA - which stands for "Impeach The Mother F----- Already." Too funny. We impeached President Clinton for a consensual affair, but Bush gets a pass on... a laundry list of crap.

I think impeachment should be a last resort, not a first one, but my point is that if Congress could wrongly go after Clinton for what he did, how's Bush get a pass?

It will be interesting to see how the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial plays out. (I'll be blogging more about this over the weekend.)

Incidentally, I'm sooo sick and tired of the media saying his whole name. Who goes by the nickname "Scooter," anyway? That sounds like a nickname from the playground in fifth grade. Hey, I go by RJ, but, I have to pat myself on the back - it's a lot cooler than "Scooter." And what's with the "I"? I never get the whole first initial thing, like "H. Ross Perot." Why not just "Ross Perot?"

One of my favorite initialed-monikers is the football player R.W. McQuarters, a defensive back for the New York Giants. "RW" is a lot to say, but his full name is Reginald Willingham McQuarters II. (There's two?) Yikes. I'd go with "RW," too.

Okay, from now on, I'm R. Joseph "Moped" Corby.

Or not.

Would someone please sock Wolfowitz?

Check out this pic of Paul Wolfowitz, president of the World Bank, and to many Americans, persona non grata, #1 neocon dirtbag.

These recent pics revealed Wolfie's inner slob during a visit to a mosque in Western Turkey. You'd think one of the principle architects of the Iraq War would have been taken care of by one of the war's many benefactors (most notably U.S. defense contractors).

Hey Halliburton, spare change for Wolfie's socks?

With Hallie the recipient of numerous no-bid government contracts, I'm sure it can spare a dime for one of its favorite war mongers.

At least there's one of the five senses is spared - we can't smell the stank.