Inhofe

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe—and by extension the fossil fuel industry in Oklahoma—has been remarkably quiet about a new scientific report showing the acceleration of arctic ice melting.

Inhofe is infamous throughout the world for denying the link between global warming, which leads to melting ice, and manmade produced carbon emissions. He once called the threat of global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” and he has obsessively attacked but failed to refute the scientific evidence about climate change. But so far he’s remained mum on the most recent information. Maybe he’s had an epiphany. (Just kidding.)

Some might ask why a senator without a major scientific background and from a relatively small state that has its own specific problems relating to poverty, health and infrastructure would make global warming such an overriding issue. The answer to that is Inhofe has received copious amounts of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. According to OpenSecrets.org, from 2005 to 2010 Inhofe received $459,750 from oil and gas interests, and he has taken $1.2 million from oil and gas interests since 1989.

As essentially a paid spokesperson for the oil and gas industry, then, it was surprising Inhofe didn’t go on the attack after an executive summary of the ice melting report was released last week. The summary says arctic ice melting is growing much faster than 2005 predictions. The melting will lead to rising sea levels and could eventually be catastrophic.

Inhofe, of course, is a member of the Republican Party, which is consistently campaigning to make severe reductions in Medicare and Social Security to, in essence, save them for the generic, always-cited “grandchildren.” (The GOP strategy is to ruin the programs right now for the grandchildren.) But what’s going to happen to our grandchildren when there’s a massive displacement of populations throughout the world because of rising sea levels.

The bottom line is this: We live in the latter stages of the oil era. Rising gasoline and fuel our prices will force us to turn to renewable energy sources in the future, but it will probably take at least one catastrophic event related to rising sea levels before the world acts aggressively to limit carbon emissions. Historically, Inhofe is on the wrong side of the issue, and his outrageous claims make the state seem like a bad actor on the world stage. He’ll probably weigh in on this new information soon, but he doesn’t speak for everyone here.

Oklahoma’s U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe is leading the xenophobic charge again to make English the official language of the United States.

Under legislation proposed by Inhofe in the Senate, all the government’s “official duties” must be in English and it also “requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to propose a policy for English language testing during the naturalization process,” according to a press release on the senator’s website.

Iowa’s U.S. Rep. Steve King introduced companion legislation in the House. Both Inhofe and King disingenuously stress the legislation is about “commonality” and “common language” without acknowledging its punitive nature and its attack, in particular, on the Hispanic community. There are approximately 48.4 million Hispanic and Latino Americans in the country.

Here’s what Inhofe said about the legislation:

This legislation will provide much-needed commonality among United States citizens, regardless of heritage. As a nation built by immigrants, it is important that we share one vision and one official language.

Here’s what King said:

A common language is the most powerful unifying force known throughout history. We need to encourage assimilation of all legal immigrants in each generation. A nation divided by language cannot pull together as effectively as a people.

Note Inhofe’s statement that we should “share one vision and one official language.” What exactly does he mean by “one vision”? Is that even possible in a Democracy? What type of person wants only “one vision” for a country the size of the United States?

Of course, Inhofe can argue he’s just promoting the views of his constituency. Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly passed its own English-only measure last November by a 75 to 25 percent margin. A lawsuit was filed challenging the constitutionality of the measure after the vote.

The English-only movement is primarily driven by social conservatives and seems particularly targeted, along with anti-illegal immigration legislation, at the Hispanic community. But what about promoting language acquisition at all levels? Shouldn’t we promote the idea that Americans should try to know other languages as well as English? Isn’t that a more enlightened view than “one vision” for the entire country?

Meanwhile, another anti-illegal immigration bill is making its way through the Oklahoma legislature. Some of its requirements are at least somewhat based on the controversial and recently passed Arizona law, which included giving police more power to determine if someone is here legally. Gov. Mary Fallin should veto the bill if it gets final legislative approval, but will she worry about alienating her base?

In the end, English-only and even stricter anti-illegal immigration laws here make the state seem intolerant of people from other cultures. This is not good for the state’s business climate or its intellectual community. Obviously, Inhofe is playing to the base here with his legislation. Unfortunately, while the corporate media—The Oklahoman and the Tulsa World, in particular—opposed Oklahoma’s English-only measure, it also implicitly condones and enables Inhofe’s overall political agenda by supporting him for office.

Chris Casteel, chief propagandist for U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, published an article in The Daily Oklahoman on Sunday that obviously tries to rehabilitate the senator’s image.

Inhofe, despised throughout the world for his ignorant and outrageous comments about scientific and lifestyle issues, suddenly feels concern for the country’s dilapidated infrastructure, according to the disingenuous article. The article claims Inhofe believes Imperial President George Bush, who plans to veto a bill Inhofe supports, is "dishonest."

According to the article, Inhofe said, "The president knows (a veto) is going to be overridden. But now he can do something for his disappearing conservative base. I think it's dishonest.”

The “dishonest“ and “disappearing conservative base” comments coming from such a right-wing toady is interesting for what it means for the upcoming 2008 elections. But there are larger, more important issues here.

Casteel fails to point out that a vast majority of the civilized world believes Bush has also been dishonest about several other issues, most notably the Iraq occupation, which some predict will cost at least $2 trillion. But Casteel, a useful tool for the neoconservative cause, has never been one to hold his sources accountable to logic or consistency. His coverage of Inhofe is about furthering what one Oklahoman editorial writer once called the conservative bastion in Oklahoma.

Obviously, if the president is dishonest about this issue—Inhofe says the bill he supports does not actually appropriate money—then he might well be dishonest about other issues, right? But Casteel would never ask Inhofe about this inconsistency. Inhofe has supported the bloody Iraq occupation since the invasion and so has The Daily Oklahoman. Here is the real logic: Most people in the world think Bush lied about the Iraq occupation; most people in the world do not think Bush lied about the bill Inhofe supports or they simply do not care at this point. Inhofe also has his own major credibility problems.

But an even larger fallacy here is that Inhofe is actually concerned with the nation’s public infrastructure. As the nation’s bridges and highways crumbled in Oklahoma and the nation over the last decade or so, Inhofe stood back and did nothing. All these corporate, conservative politicians like Inhofe are directly responsible for the decline of America’s infrastructure. They support spending money on endless war as our bridges begin to collapse. They cut taxes to the rich as they deny health care for children. Inhofe is an immoral politician who has placed his own political expediency above the American people. He acts only in the interests of corporations, which fund his campaigns.

And Casteel’s article is completely about political expediency. Inhofe now wants to distance himself from Bush, whose declining approval ratings do not bode well for the senator’s reelection campaign in 2008. Watch for more Casteel articles—Executive Editor Ed Kelley has tried to do the same thing recently with U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn—that try to argue Inhofe is actually concerned about regular Oklahomans after all.

But you are incredibly naïve if you believe Inhofe cares if Oklahomans have decent health care, decent roads and decent schools. His brand of right-wing extremism has turned a once prospering world power into a country that cannot rebuild its cities, such as New Orleans, take care of its bridges or provide adequate health care for its citizens. There is not another current politician in Washington that represents this failed ideology more than Inhofe. On one level, the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis symbolizes the collapse of Inhofe’s warped philosophy. How many more people are going to have to die before this country wakes up and sends politicians like Inhofe into retirement?

Casteel’s article also never mentions that Inhofe has drawn an opponent in the upcoming 2008 race. State Sen. Andrew Rice (D-Oklahoma City), a Democrat, recently announced he is running against Inhofe. Rice will do more than pull political stunts when it comes to public infrastructure. The state needs to elect more progressive officials like Rice before the next bridge collapses. It could happen here.