posted May 11, 2006 11:02 AM              

Flipping the corrupt tables
by David Batstone

We here at GU can relate to what David Batstone has to indure for giving an opposing view. Seems they all repeat the same mantras doesn't it?

I deeply appreciate the feedback I get from SojoMail readers. The responses tend to fall into one of two camps: 1) praise for thoughtful and gracious rhetoric; 2) criticism for being a complete idiot.

The latter approach really tickles me. I kid you not; it is rare to receive a letter of dissent from a reader that takes this tack: "Dear Mr. Batstone: I found your arguments very compelling and insightful, but I simply disagree with your assumptions."

To the contrary, nearly every letter of criticism I receive tells me that I "completely misunderstand the subject," or, more commonly, that I have a character defect (choose your label: "wacko," "heretic," "liberal," and some I dare not re-publish).

My favorite letter of critique came earlier this year. In a refreshing twist, the reader opened her note by apologizing. She recalled that I had written several essays opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. At the time, she and her family had considered me a traitor, not to mention intellectually and emotionally bankrupt. She then went on: "I wish I had apologized to you earlier, because I now write to you to rebuke your column from last week. You are completely wrong on...." My redemption was short-lived in her household, apparently.

Alas, I hate to disappoint those few readers who find me thoughtful and gracious. Because at the moment I am prepared to explode into a rant. I just can't stand it anymore! Why? Because corruption passes for ordinary, acceptable behavior in the highest reaches of government and business.

What sends me into righteous rage (caveat to self: we all think our rage is righteous) is how obvious, bald-faced, and public the corruption is. Yet the perpetrators meet no shame or punishment fitting the crime. They laugh all the way to the bank.

I will offer two prime examples. From the start there was no doubt that Halliburton and its subsidiary, KBR, would bilk American taxpayers for work in Iraq. The bidding procedure for supplying troops and constructing infrastructure, both military and civilian, was patently unfair. Due to the lack of real competition, proposed budgets were bloated.

In an April 2003 column titled "The Buck $tops Here," I warned SojoMail readers that crony economics was guiding the funds targeted for reconstruction in Iraq. Here is what I wrote then:

"Looking ahead, the Bush team has requested $2.4 billion from Congress for humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects in Iraq; requests for billions more will follow once the war ends. Big business is lining up to sign lucrative contracts. The bidders represent some of the country's largest construction companies, all of them major donors to political campaigns. Halliburton shows up on the list of corporations that will benefit from the seizure of Iraq's oil wells. Vice President Dick Cheney, of course, was the chief executive of Halliburton before moving to public office."

In light of this public scrutiny, one would imagine that Halliburton would take extra care to execute efficiently in Iraq. To the contrary, within a year reports began leaking out of Iraq that malfeasance at Halliburton had become standard operating procedure. The Pentagon itself issued audits that confirmed Halliburton's dismal performance, and suggested that funds had been misdirected. Pentagon investigators concluded that Halliburton and KBR in Iraq had created "profound systemic problems," "exorbitant indirect costs," "misleading" and "distorted" cost reports, and an "obstructive" corporate attitude toward oversight.

But wait, the news gets worse. This past April, Pentagon investigators revealed that contractors over which Halliburton/KBR have oversight in Iraq are engaged in human trafficking. Low-skilled workers, mostly from underdeveloped nations, are deceived into traveling to Iraq with the promise of a lucrative job. Once they arrive, their passports are taken away and they are forced to work long hours at the most minimal wages.

So we saw it coming, we watched it unfold, and we witnessed the robbers run from the bank with impunity. I JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!

I feel ire for ExxonMobil, too, though it feels inadequate for the grievous weight of its transgression. No, I am not referring to the nearly $8.4 billion ExxonMobil pulled in over the last quarter - yep, over three months alone - while the average Jane and Joe are getting raked at the gas pump. As it pumps in the record revenues, ExxonMobile's corporate policy practices contempt for the earth.

Paul Krugman wrote a devastating essay in The New York Times in late April denouncing ExxonMobil as an "enemy of the planet." Guess he can't take it anymore either.

Krugman explains how ExxonMobil has deliberately aimed to sow confusion and doubt about the existence of global warming. When the greenhouse effect rose to public consciousness in the 1980s, we faced a paucity of scientific research validating the extent of its impact. Exxon (which at the time had not merged with Mobil) decided to take an aggressive stance, and joined with other oil industry players to form the Global Climate Coalition. The primary purpose of the coalition was to lobby against all significant emissions regulation. Krugman reports that Shell and BP, among other companies, eventually left the coalition once it became undeniable that global warming was in play. Exxon, however, adopted an ongoing strategy to undermine the science of climate change.

Krugman cites a 2004 article in the journal Science that reviews the state of scientific research around global warming. Of the 928 serious, peer-reviewed articles on climate change published in academic journals, he writes, "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." Nevertheless, for the past two decades ExxonMobil has seen fit to throw money at individuals and groups offering "alternative perspectives" of global warming skeptics. The company's attitude toward research recalls the tobacco industry studies that suggested that perhaps cigarette smoke wasn't really that bad for you after all.

posted May 11, 2006 11:39 AM            

This brain dead twit also doesn't understand that Haliburton is the very best and most capable company in the world to do what needs to be done in Iraq...and that Haliburton is delivering on their contract.

Further, this brain dead one ignores the real recipients of the profits of the various American oil companies and those recipients risk not one penny, do no work, drill no wells, transport no crude, operate no refineries and pump no gas. Those recipients of the oil company profits risk nothing, do nothing to bring about a profit.

Those recipients are the Federal, state and local governments who receive at least 45 cents per gallon for every gallon of gasoline pumped in America while Exxon/Mobile receives 8 cents per gallon...more than 5 times as much and in some states, cities and counties, it's much more.

posted May 11, 2006 11:54 AM            

quote:

---

Cutting gasoline taxes is not a good way for the country to deal with soaring energy prices, President Bush's top economist said Tuesday.
"One of the things we worry about when we cut the tax on gasoline is that it basically stimulates additional use," said Edward Lazear, chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers.

---

posted May 11, 2006 01:10 PM            

I wasn't arguing for the removal of the gas taxes. I used that to show the utter stupidity and hypocrisy of those who attack the profit motive but never mention the main recipient of business success in the oil business.

Bush has pushed policies which would alleviate the problem of high crude oil prices and that's to expand the American supply of marketable oil to end the over dependency on foreign supplies and build the refineries necessary to refine that oil into gasoline, diesel and heating oil.

Building more nuclear power plants would take some of the pressure off oil and natural gas supplies..something else the President has proposed.

So far, every proposal to end over dependence on foreign supplies have met with a stone wall from the democrats....and have for more than 25 years.

Republicans should bring up all those proposals in bills and force a vote on each and every one..to show the public who is responsible for high energy prices and who really is in charge of democrat energy policy....if one even believes democrats have an energy policy.