Big oil driving this country to ruin

Mark Phipps, Broomfield

Published April 13, 2008 at 10 p.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

April 13, 2008

10:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

clyde writes:

So enlighten me. How much of the price of a gallon of gas is profit? Simple question.
April 14, 2008

2:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

clyde writes:

All I ask for is a rational breakdown of the cost of a gallon of gas. How much is tax? How much is profit? Is that so difficult?
April 14, 2008

6:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

Clyde - Try this: http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/broc...
April 14, 2008

7:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Clyde - if you are Saudi Arabia and it costs about $4/bbl to pull crude out of the ground, and you sell that for $110, that's $106 profit divided by 42 = $2.52/gal profit on the crude. Next question?
April 14, 2008

7:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Rather than simply pointing fingers at the oil industry and blaming it for making large profits, we need to understand that we all are to blame. Oil is a commodity and it is in greater demand than ever. China and India are industrializing and as their per capita wealth grows, so does their desire for cars and oil. Short supply and high demand equals higher prices. Its that simple. When you throw in middle east politics, hurricanes and anything else that temporarily interrupts supply, you get the infamous volatility of the oil markets.

The oil companies are what every corporation in our society wants to be: highly profitable.

We aren't helpless. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads and ordering us to buy monster vehicles that get 15 miles per gallon or less. Many cars are available that get 30-50mpg and 70mpg is just around the corner! Nobody is telling us we have to drive 70 or 80 miles per hour on our highways. We don't have to let our cars idle as we wait for someone for just a minute ( its never just a minute!). Modern cars don't need a 10 minute warm up on winter days. Cluster errands and do them on your way home from work. Try to walk more or take public transportation, Car pool!

If any of these measures sound familiar, you probably lived through the oil embargo of 1973-1974. Americans responded by buying more fuel efficient cars and taking conservation measures. It was determined that forcing cars to speeds higher than 55 mph greatly decreased gas mileage. 55mph became the top legal speed in this country. We also converted power plants to burn coal and natural gas rather than oil. These measures caused the price of gasoline to stabilize and eventually fall. It can happen again.

Rather than being a nation of victims and whiners, we can use our pocketbooks and votes to make a change in our energy policy. We can demand and buy cars that sacrifice little but that have considerably higher gas mileage. Even work trucks and Suvs can be made to get twice the mileage they currently obtain. We can also modify our driving habits so that even with our current fleet that we use less gas. Finally, we can continue to explore biodiesel and cellulose based ethanol as alternatives to gasoline.

The effect of these measures will be fewer gallons purchased and those dollars staying in your pocket. The more we conserve, the more the price of this commodity will drop, saving even more!

We need to stop blaming others and take control of our own lives. We can do it if we choose to.
April 14, 2008

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

greenleaf - Excellent suggestions, eveyone of them. I would add also that we maximize our own proven crude oil reserves that exist within the friendly confines of the USA and Canada and off our continental shelf areas. It makes no sense to let that supply go unused and untapped.
I do not wish to see the "double nickel" returned however. A national 55 MPH speed limit is intolerable on roads designed for speeds in excess of 70 or 80 MPH and cars that easily do more than a 100 MPH. If someone CHOOSES to go fast, then they alone pay their fuel costs - both private and commercial drives alike.
April 14, 2008

7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

StraightTalk writes:

Good discussion so far. Lots of facts being discussed, as opposed to poor Mark's letter to the editor.

Here's some other things to consider. What would the price of oil be if:
1. The Democrats in Congress would have let BIG OIL drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) - 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil - when they first asked to. While it wouldn't replace our demand for foreign oil, it would at least help.

2. Congress lets BIG OIL drill for oil in the Bakken Formation in North Dakota (may hold up to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil - including what's in Saskatchewan and Manitoba).

3. The Democrats in Congress would let BIG OIL drill in the Outer Continental Shelf and off the Florida coast where China and Cuba are currently setting up rigs 50 miles from Key West.

According to IBD, "a new Ernst & Young study shows the five major oil companies had $765 billion of new investment from 1992 to 2006 compared with net income of $662 billion. Over the same stretch, the industry — which includes 57 of the largest U.S. oil and natural gas companies — had new investments of $1.25 trillion compared with a net income of $900 billion and a cash flow of $1.77 trillion."

Then, there's the misguided push by Democrats to produce ethanol. What has it done for us? According to the Earth Policy Institute, "the world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. As a result, prices of food products made directly from these commodities such as bread, pasta, and tortillas, and those made indirectly, such as pork, poultry, beef, milk, and eggs, are everywhere on the rise. In Mexico, corn meal prices are up 60 percent. In Pakistan, flour prices have doubled. China is facing rampant food price inflation, some of the worst in decades. A University of Illinois economics team calculates that with oil at $50 a barrel, it is profitable—with the ethanol subsidy of 51¢ a gallon (equal to $1.43 per bushel of corn)—to convert corn into ethanol as long as the price is below $4 a bushel. But with oil at $100 a barrel, distillers can pay more than $7 a bushel for corn and still break even. If oil climbs to $140, distillers can pay $10 a bushel for corn—double the early 2008 price of $5 per bushel."

So, my conclusion is that Mark should be directing his angry comments at BIG LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, not BIG OIL.
April 14, 2008

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

I don't think we as a nation can complain about the cost of gas while we still drive by ourselves to work every day.
April 14, 2008

8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

MGD writes:

GreenLeaf had some good ideas, nice.

I prefer to ride my bike to work and park my truck 90% of the time. Yes my round trip commute is two hours but I save a ton on gas. If the weather is bad or I don't have time to ride, I pay $6.00 round trip on the bus. As GL mentioned, we do have some control over what we pay. If you don't like big oil, don't buy their products except where you have to. Build a straw-bail house with active solar heat, go off the grid, ride your bike to work, hunt for your meat and buy locally grown vegitables.
Vote with your dollar. If you CHOOSE to buy their products, you are supporting ridiculous oil company profit.

Now for Clyde. You asked the question, no one seems to have a definitive answer. So why don't you tell us? I'll guess a buck per gallon profit on average. Is this guess wrong, why? Show your work.

Profit also looks at money left over after paying huge executive pay so pleae include executive earnings per gallon sold.

Or if that question is too hard to figure, I'll ask this instead. What is the average annual total compensation of the CEOs of the biggest 5 oil companies in the US?
April 14, 2008

8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

StraightTalk,

As an independent, I do sometimes point fingers at one or the other or even both major parties at the same time. I see in your post, that you are blaming the Democrats for more than 20 years of failed energy policy. Certainly they deserve some share of the blame. I personally believe Republicans should get beyond trying to drill our way out of our energy problems. We are drilling more gas and oil wells than we have seen in decades already, but the price is still going up for both commodities. Even if offshore oil and ANWR were opened and oil in North Dakota is available, how many years does that buy for us? Eventually that oil will play out and what will be left for our grandchildren?

At one time oil was a long term strategy stretching as far as we could see into the future. Now with world competition heating up and certain and accessible supplies dwindling, how wise is it to race to the finish pumping all known reserves out of the ground until they're finally gone? Doesn't it make more sense to conserve this valuable resource and to develop alternative fuels for far more efficient vehicles than it does to simply burn it wastefully with no plan for the future?
April 14, 2008

8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

irisman writes:

Well Mark, its seem that you are being castigated for making uncomplimentary remarks about the oil companies. You should really send an apology to the oil company execs, and their profit margins are so low that we should take up a collection for their starving wives and kids. Before anybody sheds too many bitter tears on behalf of Exxon Mobil, I suggest that they look up Morningstar and compare the financial data of Exxon with other major American companies. The growth in profits and return on equity for Exxon has been phenomenal, and much higher than other sectors of the economy. Meanwhile the American automobile companies are heavily promoting monster trucks and SUV's. Is it any wonder that they're losing Money? So if you want to help the oil companies and the auto companies at the same time, run right out and buy a super-duty crew cab pickup truck.
April 14, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

StraightTalk writes:

GreenLeaf,

You seem like a rational, reasonable person. I agree that we can't drill our way out of the oil shortage. I also agree that we should, personally, do what we can to conserve energy. I drive a reasonably energy efficient car - a Honda Accord. However, I see many, many gas hogs on the road (big SUVs and monster trucks). They all seem to go at or above the speed limit, versus more fuel efficient vehicles. Which reminds me - we all could improve our driving habits....things like not flooring the gas peddle when a light turns green.

Another thing the nation (as a whole) could do is to start building new Nuclear Power Plants to produce energy. I believe that France gets most, if not all, of its energy from Nuclear Power Plants.
April 14, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

$1.42/gallon

$32/barrel
April 14, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

Oil companies no more set the price of oil than farmers set the price of wheat.

The price is set, not by the producers in some boardroom, but by the buyers at the commodities market.
April 14, 2008

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

Big_D,
So what do you think of drilling for oil in places like ANWR or the continental shelf?
April 14, 2008

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

MGD writes:

Big_D

What, specifically, did Clinton do to lower oil prices?

Oh, and we know he has cojones, he displayed them to his various White House visitors quite often...

I'm not a fan of Bush and his miracle grow formula for big Government but I really don't think that the US President can control oil prices.

How many people on this board drove to work today? How many were the sole occupants? That, more than anything, is what drives oil prices. Kick the habit!
April 14, 2008

12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

clyde writes:

I'm still waiting to have someone show how much of the price of a gallon on gas is profit for the oil company.
April 14, 2008

12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

if big oil doesn't have any control over gasoline prices then we should probably take away their corporate welfare...right?
April 14, 2008

12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

straight talk, number three on your list. It was Governor Jeb Bush who signed the act that made drilling off the panhandle of Florida off limits. Last time I checked, ol Jeb is not a Democrat.

I am waiting for something so big to happen that Americans get angry and start car pooling in earnest, driving 55 no matter how the roads are designed and getting more fuel efficient cars.

You can`t stop America when the people get angry enough, but now they are not united in some common purpose.

Everyone is going at this alone.
April 14, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

goodspkr writes:

Big oil makes about 8% net profit. At $3.50 per gallon, that works out 28 cents. On average (varies from state to state) governments makes 42 cents per gallon.

Straighttalk has it right about the oil and reserves we have in this country. Add to it oil shale and here's how it works out. We have proven reserves of oil of 30 to 90 years at current useage rates. We have oil shale that would be good for another 133 years.

What this provides us with is a way to quickly become self sufficient in energy (we are also rich in coal) while we search for alternate sources.

Take the cuffs off the oil companies and let them drill.
April 14, 2008

2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

rpmcmurphy writes:

The powers that be are working towards their plans of bankrupting this nation so it can be neatly folded into a north american union, under UN-elected control. No Constitution, no rule of law. This whole gas situation is just a small piece of the puzzle.
April 14, 2008

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

hikingartist writes:

I agree mark, but obviously big oil apologists and Bush supporters will spin this anyway they can.
It should be obvious that if you send a shady Texas oil man to DC (Harken and Enron, also his largest campaign contributor), from a shady oil family (with Saudi connections), then hold a secret "energy summit" with oil execs your first year in office, than record profits are sure to follow.
It is weird that people are "surprised" at the price of gas. Duh. The only upside is the big gas guzzlers are the primary suckers padding big oils pockets.
April 14, 2008

2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

LFC writes:

I think this article should be changed to "dependency on oil is killing us".

Okay I have tried many times, but I can't find one solid article that tells me how much the oil companies make in the US. I know that they pay CEO's alot, but so does every big company. That should be no surprise.

The only thing I have found is that I don't know, and I am not sure anyone knows just how much US oil companies make. I know the Saudis make a crap load.

So here is goes. I laugh how people now think this is Bush's fault. China and India are gobbling oil up almost as fast as us. That is the main reason why the cost of oil is $110/barrel. Supply and Demand. That seems pretty simple.

AFter that it gets tough. Just how much are these companies making? They have to refine it, put additives in it for different states, pay avg. .40/gallon to the gov't, transport it, pay royalties. I know after reading alot of stuff I don't feel that angry towards them. It seems that they have more hoops to jump through than any other industry. They are making alot of money, that is what companies try to do. Good on them. Along the way they have created jobs. So I am asking someone, how much money do they make on a gallon of gas?
April 14, 2008

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

LFC,
According to Yahoo, the profit margin of Exxon/Mobil is 11.23%
Out of $361 billion in income (2007 numbers), they made just over $40.5 billion.
You can find some numbers for Exxon here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=xom
Info on all other major oil companies should be there too.
April 14, 2008

3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

As Dan2 stated, record profits correlate directly to record demand and sales.
In business terms the oil industry average of 8.3% and even Exxon's 10 percent profit margin is fairly modest when compaired to Coca-Cola at 20.7% and Microsoft at 27.5%.

According to The American Journalism Revue even newspapers, percentage-wise are more profitable than big oil; "The newspaper industry remains highly profitable by comparison with most other businesses. Bad as 2007 has been, the publicly reporting companies still produced an average operating-profit margin of nearly 16 percent in the first half of the year--(2007)a level many businesses can never hope to achieve. Still, the average profit margin has been in steady decline since 2002, when it was 22.3 percent."

A healthy business model demands that a business make a profit to satisfy shareholders who have invested capital with an expectation of a return, and to attract new investors. People who invest in oil are no more greedy than those that invest in soft-drinks or software.

When you look at the big picture the two favorite targets of the left are Big Oil and Big Pharma which happen to be the most successful and productive industries in history. These two industries have done more to improve the human condition in terms of "Life,Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness" than all other factors combined.

I agree with Phipps that this is about greed but it is the greed of the Socialist left with their ravenous desire for power and control over our freedom of movement, our health, our diet, where we live and work and even the air we breathe.

If we don't rebel against this Socialist nonsense that the democrats are peddaling we will soon enough be asked for our "Papers Please" as we walk to the bread line.
April 14, 2008

4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

"Congress [should let] BIG OIL drill for oil in the Bakken Formation in North Dakota (may hold up to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil - including what's in Saskatchewan and Manitoba)." Brackets are my interpretation of what StraightTalk meant.
StraightTalk,
I think the Canadians would be upset if the US Congress told American oil companies to go drill in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
All these neocons dreaming of using 500 billion more barrels of oil simply want to drive their big cars, big trucks, big SUVs with no consequence about the future. Don't worry, be happy, drive 80 in a 50 MPH zone, and life is good.
The discussion about oil profits has been interesting. But, if the oil companies sell the same number of gallons of fuel, and their after-tax profits increase, then they made a bigger profit. Period. I'm not talking gross revenues, I'm talking profits. Gross revenues will increase when the price of gas goes up. But if they sold roughly the same number of millions of gallons of oil compared to last year, and their post-tax profits improve, that means their profit share went up. And I suspect that's what is happening.
April 14, 2008

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

StraightTalk writes:

Big_D,

There are quite a few posts about this letter-to-ther editor. You are about the only one that resorts to name calling and other hateful rhetoric. You've offered absolutely nothing worth reading. Why don't you clean up your act, try to elevate your comments to the much higher level of the others that have posted their comments or just disappear. It's a rule of thumb that when someone resorts to name calling, like you're doing, they know they've already lost the argument.
April 14, 2008

4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

StraightTalk writes:

Big_D, you are truly pitiful.
April 14, 2008

4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

StraightTalk writes:

Little_D,

Here are a couple your your intelligent comments: "Hell Bush is so ball-less that when we were attacked by 15 Saudis on 911 he attacked the wrong country so nobody could think of attacking those responsible. Saudi is decreasing production to force the price up and until we have a president that has some balls it will continue. Clinton started with oil at $40 a barrel and left with $35 so it can be done. This is unless you’re a ball-less oil brat. I would think it would be offensive to attack Bush’s manliness, if he had any." "Bush thinks he should hold their hands and kiss their sandy butts." I could go on, but you get the point.\

I rest my case - regarding the low-quality of your comments.
April 14, 2008

6:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

captainfrank writes:

Well, Amerikans can't have it both ways. Consider, many may have investment portfolios in oil companies and expect both dividends and a tidy sum at retirement, which most likely demand higher prices for higher returns. Focus of attention might be placed on some form of regulation on oil and it's refined product prices, since dependency on these resources has effects on the price of other essential and non-essential commodities.

We have become a woefully specialized, oil dependent, society. Resource specialization is usually a mark of doom for many species -- humans are not immune.
April 14, 2008

8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

peterpi wrote, "I think the Canadians would be upset if the US Congress told American oil companies to go drill in Saskatchewan and Manitoba."

Congress has no authority to tell oil companies to drill there. But I doubt Canada would be all that upset, since most of the imported oil comes from Canada anyway.

Big_D wrote, "I do blame a government, the Saudi government."

We get very little oil from there; most of the oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico.

"Blaming the rise in price over the last eight years on the Democrats partial control for two years is laughable"

The people who blocked drilling for oil in places like ANWR, the continental shelf and others are primarily Democrats.
April 14, 2008

9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

Posted by Big_D on April 14, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hazardous_T,
"power and control over our freedom of movement, our health, our diet, where we live and work” Seems like Bush's central committee is doing a pretty good job at controlling all of these factors. I guess the way to avoid the pitfalls is to stay aware of who is doing what. Instead of tuning out on the propaganda you should walk outside and take a look at reality. The only people asking for papers are right wingers looking for illegal aliens."

Lets start with who is doing what to restrict our freedom of movement.

"(CNN) -- Climate change is "severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" can head it off, a United Nations scientific panel said in a report on global warming issued Saturday... The U.N. head said the situation was already "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" could head off the crisis... Scientists say up to an 85 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions is needed to head off potential catastrophic changes that could lead to more floods and famine... They will also guide global climate policy for at least the next decade, and DICTATE the types of long-term investment decisions made by big industries and utilities..." Do we really want U.N. scientists DICTATING U.S. energy policy? It would certainly eliminate virtualy all travel except mass transit and walking or biking because to achieve an 85% reduction in CO2 cars would have to be outlawed.
cont...
April 14, 2008

9:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

Now lets see who wants to DICTATE our health.

From NPR: "One candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, does support the leading single-payer proposal in Congress. But that bill would also give the federal government authority to determine the number and location of health facilities. So, it would go quite a bit further than other single-payer systems like Medicare in the U.S., or even like Canada's system.

In a forum with health reporters earlier this fall, Kucinich was asked directly if that meant what he supports wasn't more like England's government-operated system than Canada's single-payer plan.

"Is it like the U.K.'s? Somewhat similar. And it's similar in form to many of the industrial democracies of the world where they provide health care to their people," Kucinich responded."

This article appeared on cato.org on September 23, 1996.:

"Europeans are now learning some hard facts of life about socialized medicine: there's no such thing as a free lunch. The question is whether Congress will learn from Europe's mistakes as it takes the next steps in reforming the American health care system.

For many years advocates of government-run health care pointed to Europe as an ideal, noting that America was the "only industrialized country without a national health care system." Now, however, the European welfare states are slashing benefits in the face of rising health care costs.

A recent front-page story in the New York Times detailed the European cutbacks. According to the article, Britain, France and Germany are all being forced to LIMIT ACCESS to care. RATIONING, already extensive, is increasing." Somehow I don't think that Dennis Kucinich is on "Bush's central committee".

cont...
April 14, 2008

9:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

And how about those that want to DICTATE what we eat:
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is the undisputed leader among America’s “food police.”... CSPI fancies itself a “watchdog” group but behaves more like an attack dog, savaging restaurants, disparaging adults’ food choices, and discouraging even moderate alcohol consumption. It famously dubbed fettuccine alfredo a “heart attack on a plate.” Its nutrition nags encourage the public to “just say no” to fried mozzarella as though it were an illegal drug... CSPI’s self-anointed “experts” also encourage “a whole lot of lawsuits” against fast-food restaurants (the group says it is “looking at tobacco as a model”), mostly because they see legal action as leverage to enact all the restrictions on food they have long supported."

And PETA, no explanation needed there...
"This morning, PETA sent a letter to Florida Governor Charlie Crist urging him to help cut down on greenhouse-gas emissions by encouraging the state's residents to adopt a vegetarian diet, pointing out that meat production is the leading cause of global warming..."

Last we have those unhappy forrest creatures that would DICTATE where we live and work...
"It could have killed someone," said San Diego fire captain Jeff Carle. Three workers sleeping at a construction site were able to escape after the terrorist Earth Liberation Front (ELF) set fire to an unfinished, 200-unit condominium development late one night in August, 2003.
A newspaper reported: "Flames leapt 200 feet into the air and could be seen for miles. Grapefruit-sized fireballs landed in courtyards and patios of adjacent buildings, and burning embers swirled in the night." Nearby residents were evacuated and returned home to find their window blinds had melted from the heat. A 500-gallon fuel tank exploded. Damages were estimated at $50 million.

One local resident described the event for San Diego's NBC affiliate: "Smoke was just coming straight at you. The flames were just all over. It was just terror." A construction worker remarked: "I'm out of work now. Thank you, arsonist."

A twelve-foot sign next to the arson site read: "If you build it -- we will burn it -- the E.L.F.'s are mad." The Earth Liberation Front, along with its sister group, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), have taken responsibility for more than 600 crimes since 1996, totaling more than $100 million in damages.

The Earth Liberation Front sprung from -- and in many ways is still an arm of -- Earth First!.

Wow Big_D, "Bush's central committee" seems pretty far left, but hey, lets not let a few facts get in the way of a raging case of Bush Derangement Syndrome...

As to illegal aliens, thats a massive discussion for another day.
April 14, 2008

9:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sweetpickle writes:

The oil companies need to make enough profit to help them provide us energy for the future, and they need the freedom to drill where the oil is. Yet state and federal governments keep trying to siphon funds off for pork projects.
April 15, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

HE5t writes:

I have a few questions. What was the price of gas when Clinton came into office? What was the price when he left office? What was the price when Bush came to Power? What is it now?
April 15, 2008

2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

LFC writes:

HE5T

That is not a good question. do you know the major reason why? Because oil is $110/barrel! Of course oil was less when Bill left office. But since then (or we could say starting around back then) India and China decided to start buying a crap load of oil, AND we are having to go deeper to get that oil, and equipment is more expensive than back. You act like Bush can control what the saudi's or Mexico or anyone else that sells oil. Fact is, if we don't pay it someone will. We aren't the ONLY big dog on the block buying up oil. Years ago if WE didn't buy Saudi would crap their pants. Completely different world than when your precious Bill was in office

It is simply inflation and supply and demand. I haven't found that the profit margins of these companies are any higher than any other big corp in America. True they could be lying, but I personally doubt it.

I am sure that no matter what you look at, the price of things today are just more expensive today than in 1992-2000. Sorry
April 15, 2008

6:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

Fringe groups? We don't need no stinkin' fringe groups!

"Earth First! founder Dave Foreman was approached by the Sierra Club and his employer, the Wilderness Society, in 1979 with an offer to fund a new extremist point group for the movement. It would serve the function of making their own demands look more reasonable … Defectors say that Foreman made the deal by himself in a comfortable Wilderness Society office, and accepted the offer on the condition that funding would be steady and adequate, and that his participation was a limited 10-year deal... Dave Foreman did quit EF! after about ten years. And comments from Foreman himself are revealing. Smithsonian magazine writes:
"We thought it would have been useful to have a group to take a tougher position than the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society," Foreman remembers. "It could be sort of secretly controlled by the mainstream and trotted out at hearings to make the Sierra Club or Wilderness Society look moderate."... In his own book, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, Foreman brags: "A major accomplishment of Earth First! … has been to expand the environmental spectrum to where the Sierra Club and other groups are perceived as moderates." Foreman made the same point to Audubon magazine in 1982: "When I call the Sierra Club 'namby pamby,' that is done consciously to negate what [Secretary of the Interior James] Watt says when he calls them extremists."

In the same Audubon article, long-time Sierra Club executive director and Foreman mentor David Brower argued: "The people that are easily named extreme make the people who were extreme seem suddenly reasonable." Brower told E magazine:
"The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We're still waiting for someone else to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable." These are age old leftist tactics.

You are correct about David Duke being a poor representative of the Republican Party since the Klan founders and vast majority of members were democrats. However while Kucinich may not garner much support as a Presidential candidate his views on government health care and many other issues are pretty mainstream among democrats.

If I am a fearmonger it is only because Socialism needs to be feared. Every step America takes to the left is a step towards National Socialist Germany or Soviet Russia.
April 16, 2008

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Big D,

I agree with StraightTalk that your comments regarding George Bush were in poor taste and a distraction from the debate. In fact, I believe your arguments would have been far better served by staying with the issues and avoiding using insults altogether.

The effect of insulting George W. is to insult the many millions of voters who put him in office. It is a non-starter for reasonable debate.

I am saying this as an independent voter who disagrees with many of the administration's policies. I also agree with many of your points, but feel it would be far easier to support your positions if it wouldn't appear that I am also supporting your use of insults.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Big oil driving this country to ruin

Mark Phipps, Broomfield

Published April 13, 2008 at 10 p.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs