America Becoming an Idiocracy

Sunday, May 22, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
by Brian Moench

In the 2006 satirical science fiction comedy, Idiocracy, the protagonist Joe Bauers, “Mr. Average American", is selected by the Pentagon for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakens 500 years in the future, to discover a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive and their only hope for survival.

With the Republicans bullying their way through state and federal legislation, the movie has become prophetic to the point where the only thing that isn't believable is that this devolution will take another 500 years. Idiocracy already has its living, fire-breathing poster child, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the ranking Republican and former chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

You may remember Rep. Barton as the Congressman who on behalf of the American people apologized to the CEO of British Petroleum, Tony Hayward, for having our Gulf of Mexico get in the way of Hayward's oil spill:

"I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure. [It] amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."

How about Barton’s grasp of CO2 as a greenhouse gas?

“It’s odorless, colorless, tasteless, doesn’t cause cancer... there’s nobody that’s ever been admitted to a hospital because of CO2 poisoning. Hell, “CO2 is in our Coca-Cola!"

Even better is Barton's explanation of how wind power could speed up climate change:

"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about.” 

Yes, Joe, that sure is something to think about!

If Barton's awareness of why we must stop building wind turbines isn't enough to blow you over, how about his penetrating insight into just how innocuous air pollution is. At a Congressional hearing in April, Barton insisted that an EPA estimate that pollution controls on coal power plants would prevent 17,000 premature deaths a year had been “pulled out of thin air.”

Unfortunately, the air coming out of coal smoke stacks is hardly thin, but Barton's understanding of medicine certainly is:

“To cause poisoning or a premature death, you have to get a large concentration of mercury into the body. I am not a medical doctor, but my hypothesis is that is not going to happen. You are not going to get enough mercury exposure or SO2 exposure or even particulate matter exposure.”

The only remotely true part of Barton's statement is that he is indeed not a medical doctor. Real medical doctors from the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association and other health groups were so outraged and stunned at Barton's statement they sent him a letter pointing out decades of medical research contradicting everything he said.

Mercury is the second most toxic substance on earth, after only plutonium, and is capable of causing brain damage in fetuses and children at unimaginably small concentrations. One out of every six women of child-bearing age has enough mercury in her blood to cause measurable brain damage in any child she might conceive.

The largest source of this mercury contamination is the emissions of coal fired power plants. Nonetheless, industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress, like Barton, have vowed to fight any attempt by the EPA to correct this deplorable public health disaster. Without a shred of supportive evidence, pollution control and environmental protection of any kind is suddenly being smeared as "job-killing", ignoring all the while that science clearly proves that pollution itself is “heart-killing, lung-killing, brain-killing and people-killing". Which Joe could argue does create job openings.

If Rep. Barton was just your crazy uncle who everyone avoids at family reunions, this would just be entertainment. But he is only the most outspoken of an entire legion of Republican politicians from their Presidential contenders on down who are strutting their disdain for science and the environment like a fully spread peacock’s tail. Even many Democrats are tagging along with this menacing flock.

In a normal world people who repeatedly lose their arm wrestles with reality would also lose the next election, their careers, and the right to leave the house without their medication and a chaperone. But in an idiocracy, they rise to power, ignore the facts, re-write the laws, cash the lobbyists’ checks, and force us all into their asylum. Idiocracy has indeed come to America, 500 years ahead of schedule.

Shell report predicts peak oil now or soon, ponders ‘Depression 2.0′

By Stephen C. Webster | Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

The industrial doomsday scenario put forward by peak oil theorists isn't just for far flung voices on the Internet anymore.

Peak oil is not a problem of Earth's supplies: there's plenty of oil in a variety of forms. The difficulty is in how much energy it takes to recover and process it. And if it hasn't happened already, soon the demand for energy commodities will soar past existing production capacity and crash headlong into the brick wall of declining discoveries.

The economic effects of this could be devastating to the human populations within industrialized societies, to say the least.

That's not just the line from Noam Chomsky, Michael Rupert and Dmitry Orlov: the second largest company in the world, Shell International, a major player in the energy commodities industries, is saying it too.

In a recent "Signals & Signposts" report by Shell, forecasting energy scenarios through 2050, the oil giant predicted a growing volatility in the price of oil and a coming period of "extraordinary opportunity or misery."

As the demand for oil buts up against actual production and remaining reserves, the climbing price of oil will cause the gross domestic product of all nations to decline, they predict.

In another section, Shell calls these economic effects "Depression 2.0." Though that scenario is introduced as "unlikely," the rest of the report does not paint a rosy outlook.

Climate and environment

Shell predicts that as the energy industry struggles to meet global demand, "environmental tension will swell and spread."

They add: "Political, industrial and individual choices will determine whether these tensions can be resolved and whether the solutions will be benign or harmful to us."

Within what they called a "zone of uncertainty," energy entrepreneurs will have "extraordinary opportunity" for growth if the right assemblage of technology is made available. However, Shell adds that competition and "natural innovation" in energy efficiency would only account for a moderation in demand of about 20 percent by 2050.

Meanwhile, between 2000 and 2050, demand for easily accessible energy will triple, they predict.

China, Shell adds, is preparing to institute its own cap-and-trade system for regulating carbon emissions. Businesses around the world, they noted, have already largely started to accept that climate regulations will soon become a reality for global trade and have begun to budget accordingly.

But even the most rapid improvements in renewable technologies, like electric cars or microorganisms that convert captured carbon into liquid fuel, won't help much in the near term.

"New energy technologies must be demonstrated at commercial scale and require thirty years of sustained double-digit growth to build industrial capacity and grow sufficiently to feature at even 1-2% of the energy system," they wrote.

The bumpy peak

Shell predicts in clear terms what journalist Michael Rupert said in his recent film "Collapse": more shocks to the industry loom ahead, which will lead to increased price volatility, producing rapid inflation and deflation on the consumer level.

And if that phenomena hasn't already begun, they add, it will be in full-boar by the end of this decade.

Interestingly enough, Shell also predicts that "[the] longer the delay in climate policy action, the more likely shocks become."

One such example would be the potential for peak output in Saudi Arabia. If it were a reality and word got out that their fields would be in permanent decline, it could produce extreme price variations and social unrest amid worsening economic conditions. A series of US diplomatic cables from 2007-2009, published by secrets outlet WikiLeaks, revealed that the former head geologist in charge of exploration for the Saudi oil firm Aramco, who retired in 2004, has expressed very serious concerns that this was happening.

This admission would seem to run counter to Shell's political strategy, which has been to help fund the obfuscation of efforts toward climate policies. They were particularly generous with former Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who was a loyal supporter of their interests.

According to the nonprofit activist group Oil Change International, as of August 2010 Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) topped the list of US politicians who've benefitted handsomely from the generosity of the oil and gas industry. He's accepted over $1.8 million from them.

Other names atop the list, they add, include "Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) at $1,707,173; Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at $1,147,558; Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) at $1,123,006; Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) at $1,094,811; and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) at $1,004,514."

Read the full report here (PDF).

GOP leader puts kibosh on Net neutrality bill

by Marguerite Reardon - September 30, 2010

The latest attempt to introduce Net neutrality legislation has stalled in a House of Representatives committee after a prominent Republican declined to support the proposal.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he would not support a Net neutrality proposal put forth earlier this week by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)

Waxman introduced a proposal for Net neutrality that would have prohibited wired broadband providers from "unjustly or unreasonably" discriminating against legal Web traffic. The proposal was very similar to one that was put forth by Verizon Wireless and Google last month. Both proposals would have prohibited wireless broadband networks from the same nondiscrimination requirement.

Waxman said in a statement that he was disappointed that Barton rejected the proposal since the committee had included Republican staffers in its deliberations. Waxman described the proposed legislation as a win-win for consumers as well as broadband service providers by empowering the Federal Communications Commission to enforce violations while providing adequate protections for cable and phone companies.

"Consumers would win protections that preserve the openness of the Internet, while the Internet service providers would receive relief from their fears of reclassification," he said.

Waxman admitted the legislation was only a temporary stop-gap to protect Net neutrality until Congress could come up with a more permanent solution.

Barton said he couldn't support the proposal because he feels that Congress should be looking for a more permanent solution.

"I have consulted with Republican leadership and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and there is a widespread view that there is not sufficient time to ensure that Chairman Waxman's proposal will keep the Internet open without chilling innovation and job creation," Barton said in a statement. "This is not a solution for the future of the Internet. America should be about preserving the vibrant and competitive free market that exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulation."

AT&T, which worked with Waxman and other lawmakers on the compromise legislation, also expressed disappointment that it did not get full support.

"While we are disappointed that it was not possible to introduce a bill with bipartisan support, we are mindful that these issues are important and complex, and that there was insufficient time to consider and act on our efforts," Jim Cicconi, senior executive president of AT&T's external and legislative affairs, said in a statement. "We are pleased that ranking members Barton and Stearns remain open to congressional action on this issue, and pledge to work closely with them toward that end."

The stalled effort is the latest in a long line of failed attempts to get formal Net neutrality rules in place. The Federal Communications Commission is currently working on official rules. But some critics argue that a recent federal court decision has called the FCC's authority into question. A court ruled earlier this year that the FCC did not have the jurisdiction to sanction Comcast when it was found violating Net neutrality principles.

Upside-Down Priorities

The Real Shakedown
By JAYNE LYN STAHL

To say that the American consumer stood by helplessly for the past few years while Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, and big oil made record, gargantuan profits is almost a cliche, but it's true, and that fact makes Texas congressman Joe Barton's apology to British Petroleum even more egregious.

After all, it is big banks, big business, and big bailouts that has been the catalyst for rising, ambiguous, but nevertheless obdurate discontent which has tried to coalesce into a coherent party, the "Tea Party," with an identifiable platform. Not surprising, then, that ultra conservatives like Dick Armey and John Boehner managed to extrapolate a faux apology for his apology from Barton.

If it seems like everything is upside down these days that may be because it is. The congressman from Texas should instead be apologizing for the gluttony of corporations and their ongoing shakedown of the American family, especially in light of a study released Wednesday, the 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress prepared for Congress by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The discovery of $1 trillion of mineral resources in Afghanistan was stunning enough to make the front page of last week's New York Times despite the fact that the United States Geological Society has been issuing reports dating back thirty years attesting to Afghanistan's mineral wealth. Yet, the shocking findings from HUD have been eclipsed by coverage of the gulf disaster. Yes, pelicans are not the only one endangered by corporate misadventures, the American family is, too.

Take a look at some of these findings from McClatchy: nearly 200,000 families were driven by foreclosure, and job loss into homeless shelters last year alone, a rise of approximately 30% since 2007. While the number of homeless individuals fell, the number of homeless families has increased two years in a row.

Another recent study also indicates that in the period from 2007 to 2008 the number of families who move in with others, or double up, has increased by nearly 10%, and that those so-called doubled-up families ultimately end up homeless.

The president's plan to put $20 billion of BP funds in escrow for victims of the oil leak in the gulf of Mexico is intended to keep these families from being driven into homeless shelters by this catastrophe. This is not just about a rescue plan for victims of a grossly deregulated, mismanaged, and unsupervised oil company. This gesture on the part of the White House reflects a way of seeing the world that suggests government intervene on behalf of the disenfranchised, and not to divest them of their resources even further, a worldview not shared by Rep. Barton and his conservative counterparts in Congress.

The release of these startling statistics comes on the eve of the announcement of the Obama administration's proposal to create a national plan to address the crisis of the rising number of homeless families. Given his remarks about BP, House Republican, the Representative from Texas, Joe Barton, will undoubtedly regard any monies allocated to deal with homelessness as a "slush fund" for the indigent.

Is this where the "family values" folks, those who brought us Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America," back in 1994, have taken us? Remember, too, that Gingrich wasn't the only one on the steering committee the last time the neo-conservative faction of the Republican Party prevailed. Dick Armey and John Boehner were hands-on editors of legislation that cut cash welfare, espousing personal responsibility for individuals, and laissez-faire, free market deregulation for corporations. The retraction doesn't remove the apology any more than the worldview can be hidden by a change of suit. The driver may be different, but power steering comes with the vehicle.

And, Joe Barton is no stranger to power steering. He was first elected to the House from Texas in 1984. Barton has a special interest in corporations like British Petroleum. In 2004, a year that found an estimated 12% of Americans living below the federal poverty line, Barton was chosen to chair the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

His Web site proudly announces that Rep. Barton is a vigorous proponent of deregulation, and says he is responsible for the first electricity deregulation bill to pass a House subcommittee. It also touts his commitment to promoting what he himself calls a "convervative agenda" which earned him the distinction of being hailed by the National Journal as one of the "Republicans to Watch" back in 2003.

Indeed, events of the past week have shown that Joe Barton is just that -- a Republican to watch, a Newt Gingrich Republican, one who is more concerned about cleansing the airwaves of indecency than of cleansing the Gulf of Mexico of the corporate corruption that caused this crisis in the first place.

At a time when a record number of Americans, nearly 40 million, receive food stamps, as Reuters projects, when twice as many have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer than just a year ago, when we have a record number of working poor, people who earn marginally more than their weekly unemployment benefit amount, it boggles the mind that anyone, but an unabashed apologist for special interests, would even dare to publicly support a company that has fast become emblematic of laying waste to nature in the interest of turning a profit.

It boggles the mind when the shakedown of the American worker has never been greater with a grossly disproportionate amount of wealth deposited in the laps of the upper one percent of the population that asking a corporation to take responsibility for the damages it has incurred on working men and women would be condemned by any member of Congress.

If there is any good news to come out of what may be the greatest man-made calamity to impact nature, and wildlife, of our times it is the naked truth that the GOP, and their partners in crime the oil companies, want to put working people in this country on an austerity program while they pay themselves, and their chief executives millions to accomplish little more than photo ops, and evasive testimony to Congress.

Joe Barton was around for the last midterm Republican revolution, and he may single handedly have defeated the next one.

Congress Urges FTC to Investigate Google

Congress Urges FTC to Investigate Google Following Revelation that "Street View" Scarfed Wi-Fi Data

Congressmen Joe Barton (R-TX) and Edward Markey (D-MA) wrote to FTC Chairman Liebowitz about Google's collection of consumer's private Wi-Fi transmissions. The House members asked the FTC Chairman to investigate whether Google's actions violate federal privacy laws or consumer protection laws. Google has admitted to collecting email and internet surfing data, but has not clarified the extent or nature of the data collection. The letter from Congress follows an investigation in Europe which revealed that Google's "Street View" vehicles in 30 countries collected not only digital images, but also data transmitted on private wireless networks. EPIC has several privacy complaints pending at the FTC, including one on Cloud Computing.