Inhofe

It comes with the standard irrelevant comparison and right-wing qualifications, but even the largest, conservative newspaper in U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe’s home state disagrees with his recent declaration that there has been a “complete collapse of the global warming movement.”

As I wrote earlier, Inhofe produced a somewhat bizarre victory video last week in his war against the environment as the United Nations Climate Change Conference continued in Durban, South Africa. In it, Inhofe sanctimoniously declared himself the victor in what he perceives as a fight between “a one-man truth squad”—that would be him—and cap-and-trade proponents.

It was complete nonsense, of course, and, as I’ve long argued, Inhofe can only get away with these types of absurd, political antics because the local, corporate media never challenges him or his ties to the fossil fuel industry. The state’s corporate media outlets, most notably The Oklahoman, seem far more concerned with preserving the right-wing status quo than seeking truth and publishing it.

So, to its partial credit, an editorial about the video published on the web site of The Oklahoman actually stated the obvious:

The global warming debate is far from over, despite Inhofe's pronouncement.

By itself, the admission might seem significant. Here’s the largest newspaper in Oklahoma essentially arguing one of the state’s U.S. Senators was not only wrong on an important issue but significantly so because “debate is far from over.” (Note the word “far” here.) So does this mean the editorial writers at The Oklahoman are going to challenge Inhofe on his belief that global warming science is a “hoax”? Hardly.

The editorial’s blunt statement about Inhofe’s error is followed by this irrelevant comparison and typical, right-wing political rhetoric:

In this standoff, the egotism and smug self-assurance are mostly on the side of the embracers (Boxer and allies) rather than the deniers (Inhofe and company).

The editorial point here is that U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer is the arrogant one, not Inhofe. It’s a false comparison and ultimately not a significant point. Boxer supports the views of the vast, vast majority of the world scientific community about global warming and doesn’t present her evidence in terms of political victory. The editorial is simply perpetuating the Inhofe myth that there’s a controversy over global warming science. There isn’t. The controversy has been manufactured to protect big energy companies.

So here’s the editorial’s logic: Well, Inhofe is wrong, sure, we’ll say that, but he’s not as egotistical as people who rationally accept the scientific method, research and critical inquiry so that makes it okay.

Here’s a couple of underlying messages in the editorial, messages repeated often in The Oklahoman and throughout the corporate media here:

• Knowledge is not important. It’s okay to dismiss science based on political reasons. This is a particularly tragic message to promote in Oklahoma given the state’s low college graduation rate. Why go to college to study when seeking the truth and research and science are simply components of a conspiracy perpetuated by egotistical people?




• It’s okay to use false or irrelevant comparisons to present an argument. This message sanctions distortions and even lies as a method of argumentation and reasoning. This, too, sends a tragic message in terms of education. It leads to a somewhat prevalent idea here that since religious and political beliefs are morally superior to critical inquiry, they can be presented in less than honest academic terms.

The Oklahoman editorial page often argues for the importance of education, but it undercuts that argument when it tries to offer cover in the form of rhetorical subterfuge for someone as anti-science as Inhofe.

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe’s recent grandiose comments claiming victory for global warming skeptics should be condemned by local corporate media outlets here as a political stunt that lowers the dignity of his office.

Inhofe’s comments come as global warming scientists and others meet at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa. His rhetoric is designed to infuriate those concerned about climate change and the planet’s environmental future, but ultimately he only looks petty and foolish. The media here should call him on it.

The senator is infamous for once saying that global warming science is a “hoax”.

In a recent videotape (see above), Inhofe announces the “complete collapse of the global warming movement” and suggest that the “only person left talking about global warming is me.”

Inhofe then warns against what he sees as the dangers of cap and trade on carbon emissions, claims the United States is no longer part of an united international effort to do something about global warming and reminds us that President Barack Obama is now “working under the radar” on climate change initiatives.

Before the video ends, Inhofe sanctimoniously refers to how he hopes Obama is not reelected for the sake of his children and grandchildren, argues the “Hollywood elites are not going to give up” and, in a snarky finale, asks the Durban conference participants to “tell Al Gore hello for me.”

The videotape is grandiose, ludicrous and silly. Inhofe doesn’t present a shred of scientific evidence that man-made global warming doesn’t exist nor does he show evidence that the issue has faded from the spotlight. A quick Google search shows the Durban conference has been covered by the Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Inhofe’s videotape, of course, actually brings more attention to the conference. This year’s brutal summer in the southern United States has also called attention to global warming in this country.

As a senator from energy state, Inhofe has been a fierce supporter of the fossil fuel industry and receives sizeable campaign money from that sector, but his ramblings about global warming will ultimately become a detriment for oil and gas companies. Does the energy industry really need Inhofe’s snarky theatrics? It makes the overall industry seem as self-serving and shallow as Inhofe’s rhetoric.

California’s U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer essentially responded to Inhofe with this videotaped message:

Note how Boxer refers to evidence and facts about severe weather events and their ties to global warming.

Ultimately, Inhofe gets away with his antics because corporate media outlets here support his overall agenda and refuse to criticize his heavy-handed tactics, but at what eventual cost for Oklahomans and people elsewhere?

It’s a tale of our two U.S. Senators here in Oklahoma. One wants perpetual war apparently no matter what the cost to taxpayers. The other wants to cut a federal social program to save money.

Let’s start with U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who announced last week he was disappointed American troops were coming home from Iraq after eight years of fighting. He blamed the administration of President Barack Obama for failing to extend a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government. According to Inhofe:

I am disappointed in the Obama Administration’s failure to negotiate a well-planned transition in Iraq that would have extended U.S. force presence beyond the end of the year in a role that would protect our hard fought security gains while helping the Iraqi people secure their own country. Of course we all want our men and women out of harm’s way, but at what cost? Internal and external threats including corruption, governance, militant and splinter groups, an ongoing insurgency, disputed internal boundaries and a strong Iranian influence will continue to challenge the newly trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces.

Note “ . . . we all want our men and women out of harm’s way, but at what cost?” Inhofe is trying to justify more deaths of American soldiers with fear mongering and speculation about the future. U.S. troops invaded the country March 20, 2003 and have occupied the country since then. Close to 4,500 American soldiers have died in Iraq and at least 33,000 have been wounded. Some estimate the Iraqi civilian death count at over 150,000.

Inhofe’s remarks also fail to mention that some American troops will remain in Iraq after the first of the year and that the U.S. will still have striking capabilities from nearby bases.

Glenn Greenwald, a writer for Salon.com, aptly points out (1) it was former President George Bush who set the date for troop withdrawal, (2) the Obama administration tried to negotiate an extension and (3) the U.S. will still have a “substantial presence” in Iraq. What are Inhofe views on these issues? Does he think Bush made a mistake?

Inhofe’s comments show he lacks a larger world view. Why did we invade Iraq in the first place? What have we accomplished? How should the so-called “Arab Spring” affect our foreign and military policy for the Middle East? How have our cozy relationships with Middle East dictators affected how we are viewed in the Arab world? How can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is at the heart of our military presence in the Middle East? These are just a few of the questions.

Meanwhile, the local media has made a big deal out of the fact that U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn wants to cut federal programs that promote healthy marriages and parenting. It was actually former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating who helped develop the idea that government should get into the marriage mediation business because Oklahomans have a high divorce rate, but it’s arguable whether anything has been accomplished or that, as Coburn argues, such programs are even measurable.

I do think parenting programs are worthwhile even if precise measurements in terms of success are vague, but I’m skeptical, too, about healthy marriage programs, which seem even more nebulous.

But the main issue here is that Coburn, just like Inhofe, ignores an obvious way to cut federal spending: Cut defense spending substantially. Noted economist Joseph Stiglitz, for example, has estimated the Iraq War could cost around $5 trillion. This is the war that Inhofe, of course, wants extended.

To his credit, Coburn has indicated he favors some defense spending cuts, primarily based on better accountability, but the real issue are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which continue to drain the federal budget. We need to work outside the frame of “military occupation” when it comes to American defense security and foreign policy. It’s counter-productive and expensive.