Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: High-handed Haggard

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 25, 2008 at 11:48 p.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Shameless. It's the one word that most quickly springs to mind upon reading this week that Ted Haggard has returned to his old abode in north Colorado Springs - a five-bedroom home assessed just this year at $715,000.

Such news tidbits remind us of the gall it took for Haggard to issue an appeal last fall for financial assistance.

"It looks as though it will take two years for [Haggard and his wife] to have adequate earning power again," Haggard wrote in his appeal, "so we are looking for people who will help us monthly for two years. . . . Between now and the end of the year, we have to find the people who want to help us transition into our future. So I am starting today to let friends like you know that we are raising money . . ."

But surely it is the obligation of any decent man who finds his earnings abruptly curtailed by scandal, as Haggard did after resigning from his pulpit in November 2006, to exhaust the bulk of his own assets before stretching out his hand to friends and sympathizers in a plea for financial aid.

Trade in the ritzy car. Sell the high-class house. Spend the year's worth of severance pay and the huge anniversary bonus, and plow deeply into savings, too.

At the time that a Colorado Springs Gazette reporter visited the former preacher's house last weekend, "Haggard's gate stood open . . . Water was burbling from an electric fountain in the front yard, and five vehicles sat near a multicar garage, including two motorcycles and a cream-colored Cadillac Escalade."

It appears that Haggard is managing a fairly sleek "transition into our future."

Climate of fear

So NASA's best-known climate scientist is also a political thug? Given James Hansen's almost hysterical rhetoric in recent years regarding global warming, perhaps it's no surprise that he believes that "CEOs of fossil energy companies . . . should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," as he wrote this week in The Guardian. But his position is despicable nevertheless, however consistent with his apocalyptic outlook.

Hansen's attitude is also highly ironic given his claims that the Bush administration tried to silence him a couple of years ago. Not only would Hansen apparently silence those who disagree with him or who buck his policy prescriptions, he'd dragoon them into criminal show trials.

Incidentally, Hansen's larger thesis in his Guardian piece is that "a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year. . . . climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a 'perfect storm,' a global cataclysm, are assembled. . . . the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year."

"We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," Hansen told The Associated Press this week. "This is the last chance."

Yet surely Hansen realizes that atmospheric carbon dioxide is almost certainly going to rise no matter what the United States does in the next decade or so. Just this week, Bloomberg reported that "India's biggest nonstate electricity generator will double coal imports this fiscal year to 3 million tons, aiming to boost production by a fifth." Why, even the Italian power utility Enel "is planning to build another coal-fired power station," according to Reuters.

It appears that Hansen is going to have to vastly expand his list of targets to jail for "crimes against humanity and nature" - assuming the culprits in other countries can be seized and hauled before the dock. Perhaps Hansen can persuade the next president to adopt a policy of pre-emptive military invasion of nations still determined to build coal-fired plants. After those grueling tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, our troops should find the occupation of Rome a notable relief.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • June 26, 2008

    8:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Konyok writes:

    What is this growing progressive enthusiasm for criminalizing policy differences?

  • June 26, 2008

    8:30 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Bradley_R_Cook writes:

    As long as there are mindless sheep willing to believe that Haggard has "been saved" and "converted" back to being straight (or that he was never really gay in the first place), Haggard will keep on fleecing them.

    If it weren't for the religious aspect, nobody would ever fall for this transparent con game.

  • June 26, 2008

    8:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Romulus writes:

    Mr. Carroll would prefer to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence and keep his head in the sand about the seriousness of the climate change problem. It's much easier to ridicule the efforts of those who are actually trying to do something to prevent a bad situation from becoming catastrophic.

  • June 26, 2008

    8:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rickg19611 writes:

    "It's much easier to ridicule"

    Like ridiculing Carroll, but offering ZERO evidence to back up the criticism.

    Pot. Kettle. Black. Romulus.

  • June 26, 2008

    8:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Konyok writes:

    Romulus,

    Do you believe that people who disagree with you are criminals?

  • June 26, 2008

    9:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    Another perspective on Mr. Haggard:

    Although he refuses to admit it publicly, Mr. Haggard is evidently bi-sexual. Why should he pay a financial penalty for that?

  • June 26, 2008

    10:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    T1anda writes:

    Ted Haggard=Shameless con man!!

    C'mon stupid, clueless sheeple, give reformed sinner more of your money!! Disgusting to say the least!!!

  • June 26, 2008

    10:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    CoLoradoCitizen writes:

    "High-Handed Haggard"? Nah, how about "Right-Wing-Reach Around"

  • June 26, 2008

    11:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    I think Haggard is scum, but Andy, he's not paying a penalty for being bisexual. He's paying a penalty for hiring a prostitute (who happened to be male), using drugs, and lying about it to a church that disapproves of such activities. Another church might have said "Next time don't buy tricks and coke from a blabbermouth", sent him off for a few weeks of reflection and change, and brought him back. But this one chose to fire him. I personally feel that the church in question wouldn't recognize Jesus if he walked in, parted the waters in their baptismal font, and came up with bagels and lox for everyone out of nowhere, but they exercised their rights. I agree totally with Vincent Carroll: Haggard hardly sounds like he's suffering.
    Vincent Carroll's attitude towards CO2 emissions seems to be "Mommy, India and China down the block are spewing CO2, why do I have to clean up? Waaaaah!" It's an excuse to do nothing. If a politician or a businessperson he didn't like said "Other people are doing it, why pick on me?" Vincent would scorn them. But when it comes to his backyard, suddenly Vincent is whining like the best of them.

  • June 26, 2008

    1:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    "He's paying a penalty for hiring a prostitute..."

    Agreed, that's illegal, but shouldn't he have his day in court? Besides even if he is guilty, is the fine for solicitation hundreds of thousands of dollars?

    Listen, I'm no fan of Haggard. I think he's been exposed as a hypocrite, and, yes, I've rather enjoyed watching his downfall. Still, being one of those who feel that sexual orientation (short of pedophilia) is a personal choice, it seems to me hypocritical to call for his ruin. Shouldn't we be coming to his defense?

    BTW, my guess would be that he (and his family) have suffered a lot. I mean really, that's quite a face plant he took.

  • June 26, 2008

    1:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    why would we defend the actions of a hypocritical bigot, andy?

    i don't view the Deniers as criminals. i pity the theological and political hinderances with which they wrestle.

  • June 26, 2008

    2:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Konyok writes:

    I didn't even want to touch the Haggart issue. He is a parasite, pure and simple. I don't think it would hurt him at all to get a real job.

    Jay, it's not just "deniers." It's Bush & Cheney, et al., it's "hate speech" prosecutions against Mark Steyn and, if you can dig it, Brigit Bardot. This rhetoric of criminality seems to be taking on a life of its own.
    I'm seeing a pattern form and it has dangerous implications.

  • June 26, 2008

    4:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HolierThanThou writes:

    Let's take a look at those CEOs of oil companies. Or must I delicately refer to them as "fossil energy" companies? Here are a couple of their accomplishments since 2000:

    1. Helped put the worst president in American history in the White House along with a cabal of war criminals, lunatics, and imbeciles.

    2. Incited war against a country that had not attacked us so they could steal that nation's oil wealth and scalp us on the price.

    I don't know about anyone else around here but starting a war, murdering thousands of people, and ruining our country for money seems like high treason to me. Or maybe I should delicately refer to it as "the national population reduction and prosperity limiting program for the exclusive wealth enhancement of our patriotic oil providers".

  • June 26, 2008

    4:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Konyok writes:

    Ah, HolierThanThou

    (Interesting choice of names.)

    So, do you have more faith in the courts than the political process?

  • June 26, 2008

    8:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HolierThanThou writes:

    Ah, Konyok,

    Evidently, you are challenged by the concept of accountability. This is a term that conservative hucksters and other traitors love to bandy about without the slightest inkling of understanding what that really is. When it comes to accepting accountability then the conservatives and wealthy overlords of corporate America flee like cockroaches from the light. They habitually blame their subordinates holding the least powerful solely accountable for the bad decisions of the most powerful.

    No one needs to be sent to the gallows for supporting one policy or another. Yet there comes a time when theory is converted into action. Those actions have consequences. When those consequences cost Americans their lives and livelihoods then a reckoning is required to set things right.

    Think of it as a performance incentive. When the corporate overlords offshore jobs then they need to pay taxes to account for the social costs of putting millions of Americans out of work.

    I propose making this a painless process. Let us tax 90% of everything owned plus all of the income of everyone who owns more than a billion dollars in assets and income. All of that goes to the stewardship of duly elected government officials who serve the people and may be recalled by petition. They will manage those funds for the benefit of the American people. Offshoring of jobs shall be punishable by hanging. Mere incompetence leads to immediate replacement and forfeiture of salary and bonuses.

    This is painless because those who are taxed shall still have control of about 100 million dollars of assets and assorted wealth. Cry me a river.

    If they complain then we tax them harder and start working our way down the list. If they still complain then we put them on trial for treason. They can then atone for their crimes against the American people by swinging from those aforementioned gallows. Keep it as an option for them like when they paid themselves with unearned stocks and bonuses.

    This is real accountability that also constitutes an incentive program for all those who would rule over the financial power of America. Such a performance incentive would ensure that those who would accept great power must also accept great responsibility.

  • June 27, 2008

    9:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    denverkid78 writes:

    I think it was a well thought out strategy. Haggard falls by the wayside. "I was tempted by Satan! The Lords words, and faith in the Lord saved me! The Lord can save you, too! But first, please send me a ton of money..."

    Just another way of fleecing the flock!

  • July 5, 2008

    4:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Patron_Drinker writes:

    not that I'm trying to get jay and mytwosense going about the "strawman" and the "boogeyman" but this is the very definition of Socialism, espoused by one of their fellows, on this very page: "Let us tax 90% of everything owned plus all of the income of everyone who owns more than a billion dollars in assets and income. All of that goes to the stewardship of duly elected government officials...."

    Does a person with $11,000,000,000 go through the line twice? What happens to the point-shavers, the ones who have $1,000,000,001 and give away $2 so they're under your magic threshold of evilness? And what about the folks in Indonesia and such places who've come to count on the jobs supplied by the "corporate overlords"? It's not painless for 90% of them, because they're getting the ax (maybe even literally). Have some compassion, comrade.

    He also fails to take into account that those duly-elected wealth-redistribution officials will have to spend a lot of money to get elected, and that most of that money will come from special interests (probably including that most heinous of organizations - Big Oil) who'll need to be paid off with taxpayer money.

    How about this: we round up all the socialist malcontents (like HolierThanThou) and ship them to Cuba and China so they can experience those real-world socialist triumphs. Alternately, we could send them to Zimbabwe, so they can learn what a real tyrant is. Heck, we'd probably be able to get rid of so many that there'd be jobs with benefits for all! And since they won't be driving their gas-guzzling 1960 pollution-mobiles all over the place protesting against sensible energy policies, the air and water would be cleaner, and the demand for gas would probably lessen so that fuel prices would drop. And because they wouldn't be blowing all that CO2 and hot air, greenhouse gases would stop building up. Less heat = less need for cooling, which would mean we could make a green America a reality.

    Dare to dream....