A short note about the state of affairs

Re: Anu on June 24, 2010 at 9:34 am
So much misinformation to counter, so little time…

So, you think that taking money from fossil fuel companies is a bad thing ?

I must infer you do, as you find such worthy of mention. We have grown weary of the continual assertions that climate change deniers skeptics must be paid operatives of Big Oil, obviously paid to spread disinformation and thus untrustworthy. Even when disproven, it is still asserted. Any little bit of grant money ever received from an energy company is touted as absolute proof someone is currently acting as an operative of Big Energy. By that standard virtually all of modern medicine is untrustworthy and virtually all practitioners are obviously paid operatives of Big Pharma, even the neighborhood doctor who runs a free clinic and accepts free medicine for distribution to the poor.

Why is it a “smear” to report facts ?

The selective reporting of only certain facts and even only certain elements of those facts can indeed be a smear. Have you no knowledge of political campaigning?

And if you think my quick citation of exxonsecrets.org…

For which you mean your citation of Greenpeace, which is hardly a neutral party regarding climate issues.

…is not authoritative enough as to Dr. Lindzen’s background, how about PBS ? Do you trust any sites that have articles such as “The Doubters of Global Warming” ?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html

Hmm, let’s see… Title of piece is The Doubters of Global Warming. From it we find this quote purportedly from Dr. Lindzen: “There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe.” So Dr. Lindzen is no doubter of global warming, he admits there has been a warming trend, yet the piece portrays him as a doubter of global warming. Thus the piece itself discredits itself.

How about SourceWatch ? Do you have a long, long list of websites which are nothing but lies and smears that you won’t “believe” because you don’t like their facts ?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

*yawn*
At least Logical Science is cute. Their page “A Rundown of the Skeptics and Deniers” is especially so.

Whatever the situation is, you will almost always have a few dissenters. These are people that are skeptical and actually believe what they are saying. When science and a major industry clash, you will almost always find professional deniers. Deniers behave more like lobbyists than skeptical scientists. Here is a list of the most prominent skeptics and deniers:

Then their lists (plural) doesn’t even attempt to differentiate the people and groups into those separate categories. Might as well paint them all with the same wide brush, eh?
Then comes their Lindzen piece, filled with wonderful facts(?) like:

His article “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,” was underwritten by OPEC. 1

What was their reference, linked at that “1” at the end? A partial reprint of a December 1995 Harper’s Magazine article that said so, without a source. The original is behind a paywall, however the zoomed-in grainy images of the pages don’t reveal anything that could appear to be a reference list. The author was Ross Gelbspan.

“Ross Gelbspan is an American writer and activist.”
“He is a regular contributor on DeSmogBlog.”

So a regular contributor of DeSmogBlog wrote an article back in 1995 making the OPEC claim against Lindzen, for which there appears to be no referenced proof of this claim. This gets incorporated into the Logical Science piece as a conflict of interest of Lindzen, said site really doing it’s best to barely duck a lawsuit while strongly implying Lindzen is a paid Denier.
Gee, with absolute referenced proven facts like that, what’s not to like about that source?

And do you deny that the Cato Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, and Heartland Institute are “pro-business” ?

What’s to deny? They are pro-freedom, want minimal governmental interference. The Cato Institute in particular has long been known as a libertarian think-tank. And in a free society, capitalism is the business model, and if you’re for capitalism you are pro-business. You got something against freedom?

“Proving” that ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace project doesn’t help your argument one bit…

Your awareness of the issues involved and the public perception thereof is hereby noted.
😉

From: Anu on June 24, 2010 at 10:10 am

I see.
And what’s your hand-waving theory explaining Ford killing the Excursion ? Did that have nothing to do with losing money, also ?

Can’t refute the Hummer stuff so you have to change over to a different company and vehicle, eh?

Ford needed to free up capacity at the Louisville plant that produces the Super Duty pickup trucks. A more fuel efficient, extended-length Expedition, named the Expedition EL (Max in Canada and Mexico), has replaced the Excursion in the company’s lineup for the 2007 model year.

So says the authoritative Wikipedia. A cost-saving maneuver to maximize profits, replacing one model with a different version of another model, which freed up capacity. Nothing special there.

Show me the sites, like WUWT, where hundreds of people were blogging about how the Free Market was taking away our freedoms and ruining our children’s future.

You mean a true Free Market, without unneeded and unwarranted government interference and regulation, that naturally creates jobs and wealth? Nah, you wouldn’t find that on sites like WUWT. Daily Kos and their ilk are the ones to look at.

I guess nobody on your TV…

Yeah, like I really trust TV for accurate un-spun news these days. Local news, and that’s about it.

…told you about the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, also known as “the Financial Services Modernization Act” – getting rid of those nasty regulations which were put into place after the last financial meltdown caused by Wall St. geniuses. Look into it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Okay…

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on 1 July 1999 by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[6] [7] [8] [9][10]
When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30th by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as “robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities” (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[11]
The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[8] [12] On November 4th, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13] [14] and by the House 362-57.[15] [16] This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[17]

A lot of Democrats, a clear majority, helped pass that bill, along with the Republicans, and a Democrat President signed it. A lot of politicians thought it was a good idea.
I came, I looked. Was there anything particularly noteworthy there?

You might also want to look into the Bush gutting of the SEC…

Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002:

The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the ‘Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act’ (in the Senate) and ‘Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act’ (in the House) and commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002, which set new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. It is named after sponsors U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH).
The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation’s securities markets.
It does not apply to privately held companies. The act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional corporate board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the new law. Harvey Pitt, the 26th chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), led the SEC in the adoption of dozens of rules to implement the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. It created a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure.
The act was approved by the House by a vote of 423–3 and by the Senate 99–0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt.”[1]

Giving the SEC more authority and duties gutted it?

…the Goldman Sachs criminal investigation…

Which one? Goldman Sachs has done a bunch of questionable things over the years.
Just for the noticing, Robert Rubin “…spent 26 years at Goldman Sachs serving as a member of the Board, and Co-Chairman from 1990-1992.” You know, guy who was the 70th US Secretary of the Treasury, served January 11, 1995 to July 2, 1999 under Democrat President Bill Clinton? Before that was the first Director of the National Economic Council which was formed by Democrat President Bill Clinton, and he served under Democrat President Bill Clinton?
BTW, about the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act…

After resigning as Treasury Secretary and while secretly in negotiations to head Citigroup, Robert Rubin helped broker the final deal to pass the bill.[4] He later became one of three CEOs that headed up CitiGroup.

Very interesting.

…and how Enron got to choose the head of FERC while Bush was President.

Now that one is so out of left field you’re going to have to supply some references for it.

Forgetting the $700 billion bailout of October 3, 2008, are we ?

Goldman Sachs sure didn’t.

In June 2009, Goldman Sachs repaid the U.S. Treasury’s TARP investment, with 23% interest (in the form of $318 million in preferred dividend payments and $1.418 billion in warrant redemptions).[34] In December 2009, Goldman announced their top 30 executives will be paid year-end bonuses in restricted stock, with clawback provisions, that must go unsold for five years.[35][36]

As to the Troubled Asset Relief Program itself:

Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent estimates of the cost, as of April 12, 2010, is down to $89 billion, which is 42% less than the taxpayers’ cost of the Savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s.[1]
(…)
As of February 9, 2009, $388 billion had been allotted, and $296 billion spent, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

As far as government programs go, surprisingly, it’s been a stunning success. Nowhere near $700 billion was spent, or at least not yet…

One way that TARP money is being spent is to support the “Making Homes Affordable” plan, which was implemented on March 4, 2009, using TARP money by the Department of Treasury. Because “at risk” mortgages are defined as “troubled assets” under TARP, the Treasury has the power to implement the plan. Generally, it provides refinancing for mortgages held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Privately held mortgages will be eligible for other incentives, including a favorable loan modification for five years.[10]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were big election contributors to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who got the lending rules relaxed to the benefit of Fannie and Freddie. Then came the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, now the current Democrat Administration wants to use the “excess” TARP money to help Fannie and Freddie… See a trend?

Ford was very lucky to have crashed in 2006, two years before Wall St. excesses brought the American economy to its knees:

Ford was lucky to have seen the way things were going early on, made the tough choices, and were in a position to be able to wisely decide not to accept government help.

They got rid of Bill Ford as CEO…

Ford did that? O RLY?

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ford also became President of the company in April 2006, with the retirement of Jim Padilla. Five months later, in September, he stepped down as President and CEO, and naming Alan Mulally as his successor. Bill Ford continues as Executive Chairman, along with an executive operating committee made up of Mulally, Mark Schulz, Lewis Booth, Don Leclair, and Mark Fields.

Picked his own successor, stepped down, still is in the top management… How do you define “got rid of”?

Oil is fungible – the US imports 12 million barrels a day, and the price is set in a global market.

One must also figure in transportation costs. The Middle East is very far away, and Mexico, Canada, even Venezuela are very close. The price of Middle East oil must be rather cheap to make it worthwhile to haul it over to the other side of the world. Plus, one has to consider the classifications of crude oil. Dubai-Oman is a sour crude from the Middle East. It is less desirable than others for refining for the US market due to environmental regulations.
Look at the official numbers. Annually, in 2009 we imported 3,307.058 million barrels total, of which only 609.366 are from the Persian Gulf, only 18.4%. Most recently available montly figures, for March 2010, 359.216 million barrels total, 57.116 Persian Gulf, 15.9%.
If all the US wants is independence from Middle Eastern oil, it can be done essentially overnight. We have enough local sellers we can buy from. Heck, we can drill more than enough right here, without even touching our vast oil shale reserves.

Suuuuruue, and Okinawa still welcomes American GI’s 65 years after WWII, protecting them from Communism…

Which I shall take as an admission that you have found out neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is an ongoing occupation, since you are so eager to talk about something else (again).
😉