http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&Content Record_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca

You can't make this stuff up:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Images.View&File_id=75d62e6f-8 02a-23ad-47ac-e995a95082c7&ImageGallery_id=04bf1b76-802a-23ad-438b-dec552db7c92

You're so RIGHT! You CAN'T make this stuff up!

(Would any normal person sign anything from this buffoon, let alone take him seriously?)

In his business career, Inhofe was a real estate developer and became president of the Quaker Life Insurance Company. That company went into receivership while he managed it; it was liquidated in 1986.

Inhofe is one of the most politically conservative members of either house of Congress; among other political stances, he strongly opposes abortion and gay rights.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, he was among the panelists questioning witnesses about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. There he made news by claiming he was "outraged by the outrage" over the revelations of abuse, suggesting that shock at the crimes was more offensive than the crimes themselves.

He has also criticized the Red Cross as a "bleeding heart".

Against the wishes of the Bush administration, the Pentagon, and the American Petroleum Institute, Inhofe has persistently blocked American ratification of the international Convention on the Law of the Sea, claiming that the treaty would infringe on American sovereignty.

Inhofe's consistent citing of the Bible as the source for his stances on various political issues, such as gay rights, abortion and United States' support of Israel has made him very popular among Christian Fundamentalists.

In 2006, Inhofe was one of only nine senators to vote against the McCain Detainee Amendment banning torture on individuals in U.S. Government custody.[5][6][7][8]

In a Senate speech, Inhofe said that America should base its Israel policy on the text of the Bible.

In March 2002, Inhofe also made a speech before the U.S. Senate which included the explicit suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the U.S. for failing to defend Israel.

Inhofe outraged some federal employees on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by stating on national television that there probably weren't very many casualties because federal employees wouldn't be at their desks at 9 a.m. and that they would instead be off having coffee somewhere.

Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities. In a July 28, 2003 Senate speech, he "offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists."

In his speech, Inhofe also claimed that, "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."[10] However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements.[11] Also, the satellite record begins in 1979 and the balloon record effectively in 1958, so it is unclear what Inhofe means by "last century".

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe compared environmentalists to Nazis.

He said, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy..."

Inhofe had previously compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo.[13]

He had also made allegations that the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers.[14][15]

Inhofe had previously claimed that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."[16]

Inhofe, claiming uncertainties related to climate science and the adverse impact that mandatory emissions reductions would have on the U.S. economy, voted on June 22, 2005 to reject an amendment to an energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and created a mandatory emissions trading scheme.

On September 25, 2006, Inhofe gave a speech on the Senate floor in which he argued that the threat of global warming was exaggerated by "the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture."

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2004 election cycle.[19] The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhofe


The Deranged Mind of James Inhofe
Maybe the Dumbest US Senator of them All
By BRUCE JACKSON http://www.counterpunch.org/jackson05122004.html

Aside from being a tad liberal, Inhofe seems ok.
Anyone who thinks global warming is a hoax can't be too pink around the gills.

Herb

You really enjoy stirring it up in here, don't you?

Now, now.

Or as Mr. Nixon would say, "That's all very well and good."

Around here, I'm either told not to take things so seriously, or told I'm taking things not seriously enough.

Herb

Herb- I love your freedom for Iraqi's slogan. Just wrap yourself in an American flag and pass out "You're Free" leaflets on a corner in Bagdad. I'm sure you'll feel as free as any Iraqi citizen.

Unlike the UN, at least we're trying to give the Iraqis a shot at freedom.

Will it work? Will it fail?

We could have asked the same questions about the American Revolution.

Live Free Or Die.

Herb

Why is it always so black and white for you Herb? It's far more complicated and blurry. Living free in Iraq may mean one thing to you but a completely different thing to an Iraqi. My brother lived in the Persian gulf area for 4 years and its such a different way of life.

Trying to put our kind of democracy upon a culture like Iraq's is simply asking for problems. Let the Iraqi people do it themselves.

Ya know, as much as I hate to admit it, the French helped us win independence against England.

If they hadn't, we'd be speaking English right now.

Herb

don't let the troll distract you from the fact that nobody asked us if we wanted to "install freedom" in Iraq. we're there to rid iraq of wmds. the troll is trolling.

So nice that Herb goes to the inconsequential to try and make his point.

Chris-I was trying to accomodate your desire to avoid 'black and white.'

Everything's grey, remember?

Herb

Herb- I appreciate your attempt. Everything is not grey we both know that however your answers to most everything on this board comes across b/w. It's just not that simple.

I guess it's my style.

I see white hats and black hats.

The guys who flew airplanes into New York buildings and killed thousands of innocents wore black hats. So did Saddam as he gassed innocents.

9/11 responders and the soldiers giving Iraqis a shot at freedom wear white hats.

Sometimes life IS black and white.

Herb

Maybe yYou should try "color" sometime, HerrB.

They even have TV's with that now! Ask Nixon if you don't believe me.

And what color hat do the people, who empowered Saddam to gas the Kurds, wear?

Herb-the idea black is bad and white is good is a clear indication that you still have a ways to go in truly understanding people in general.

There are issues that are very clear, but the answers for them are not. Getting Saddam has NOT gotten the mastermind of 9/11. Giving Iraqi's what you call "freedom" has not given them peace. See Herb...it's gray again.

Great point, Chris. It brings up an interesting question.

Assume you have only two choices: peace without freedom, or freedom without peace. Which would you choose?

Discuss.

You left out one other reality: No freedom and no peace.

Herb

I didn't leave out anything. It's a philosophical exercise, not intended to be based on reality.

I'll tell you my answer if you tell me yours.

Herb said>>>>
The guys who flew airplanes into New York buildings and killed thousands of innocents wore black hats. So did Saddam as he gassed innocents.

9/11 responders and the soldiers giving Iraqis a shot at freedom wear white hats.


What about all the Iraqis that have died in the last 5 years and killed during the bombings at the beginning of the war???

I like this question!

I'll take the freedom without peace. In that scenario, we have hope. It's also real in that there is always conflict of some sort. Comes with being who we are. Living with some acceptance of that is better than living a lie.

Peace, without freedom is living a lie. It implies total domination and there is no hope in that scenario. This is, at the core, a denial of who we are and of what we can one day be.

Another way to think about it is tyranny (peace w/o freedom) or anarchy (freedom w/o peace). Remember that in this situation tyranny is complete governmental control, but by a benevolent leader - imagine Mr. Rogers as supreme dictator.

I hesitate to use real-world examples to illustrate each situation, because they would be imperfect matches. But there are clearly parallels to some of the stuff we are seeing on the world stage today.

Thanks for your response, Missing - some great thoughts there. I'm still waiting for Herb's answer to the question, when I'll share mine.

Dittos to MissingKSKD.

Live Free or Die.

Herb

Is that it, Herb? Sloganeering? Uh, well...okay. I guess that's an answer.

I want to give a complete response, but I don't have time right now, so I'll give my answer later today.

"Is that it, Herb? Sloganeering?"

Nice smarmy, ham-fisted attack to my straight-talking response.

You're beginning to sound like Chris: Everything is grey.

To some of us, there's still a right and wrong, a good and bad. As an example, Stalin was not misunderstood, or simply misguided, or a little bit off. He was evil.

Herb

Herb, if evil is so black and white to you, then do you think it's wrong for, say, the United States, to be "friends" with evil dictators? For example, during the Reagan-Bush years, Saddam Hussein was one of the US's best friends in the middle east. Reagan and Bush sat back while Saddam gassed his own people and did nothing.

Nixon did business with some pretty evil people, like the Shah of Iran. Have no doubt he knew how evil the Shah was.

Doesn't that make Reagan, Bush, and Nixon evil too? After all, there can be no gray areas right? There could be no rational reason to deal with evil people, unless you are evil yourself. Right?

(I'm not saying this is just Republicans; FDR was allies with Stalin too.)

Andrew

Herb sez: "To some of us, there's still a right and wrong, a good and bad."

As if the rest of us don't have this?

Conversation would be considerably easier, if it were not laced with this shit. Sorry man. I'm sure you don't mean it, but it still really sucks.

Ed: Eager to hear your answer. Hoping for some discussion on that to follow!

And during WWII, Joseph Stalin was one of our best friends. Alliances change with a countries interests.

Yesterdays enemy can be your best friend next year.

Ho chi Minh was a valuable ally in WWII, wasnt so friendly in the 60's.

Joseph wheeler and fitzhough Lee were Confederate generals feared by the Union in the civil war, but were valuable Union generals during the spanish American war.

if the world is black and white, the troll would be classified as EVIL!

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Keep your friends close....
Keep your enemies even closer...

Eminem.

But do you really have freedom, without peace?

>>>"Keep your friends close....
Keep your enemies even closer..."


Trixter, you finally make sense.

But..... YOU still DON'T!

Trixter, you don't realize it, but that's a compliment when it's coming from you. Thank you.

Arguing politics on the internet is pointless.

How's that for a slogan?

You have a point there.

"Herb, if evil is so black and white to you, then do you think it's wrong for, say, the United States, to be "friends" with evil dictators?"

Yes.

And even if Mr. Nixon did it. And from me, that hurts a lot to say it.

Herb

Arguing politics on the internet is pointless.

Not bad...

But it isn't pointless. It may well be for some people, but a growing number of people are getting engaged in the discussion. IMHO, that's a really good thing.

Warner, no.

However, you have more of it --potentially a whole lot more, depending on the political scene, than you would have otherwise.

---and you have some degree of control as well. That can add considerably to the perception of completeness where freedom is concerned.

Finally, there is balance and a reason to be here. In an environment with no conflict, there is a strong case for us having worked out things as a race. Finished, so to speak. If this is the case, what is there to do but experience? How rich would those experieces actually be?

Finally, the workday is over...

Herb: Smarmy? Ham-Fisted? Whatever you mean, I wasn't trying to be that. Just disappointed in your response - I was hoping for something more explanatory.

Missing: I'm leaning toward peace without freedom. Here's why...

As I stated, freedom without peace is anarchy. And Warner is on the right track - without peace do you truly have freedom? I would say no. Living in an environment without peace or security, any freedoms one may have are neutralized by the constant need to keep one (and one's loved ones) safe. By having to constantly be in survival/defense mode, you really don't have the opportunity to exercise the freedoms that you have. And what good is having freedoms if the conditions of life don't allow you to use them?

Granted, peace without freedom is not much better - think of the "guilded cage". But it provides security, and safety, and survival (remember, we're talking 'peace' here). Life is a prerequisite for liberty, not the other way around. Most political philosophers agree that almost any form of government is better than no government, and tyranny, good or bad, is government. And in this case it is assumed to be good, or at least peaceful (no one lives in terror or fear). Now, if you were to equate "peaceful" with "orderly" that is a different thing, and I might have a different answer.

And we shouldn't be so hard on tyranny; it exists in many forms throughout the Portland area - it is called the average family. My pre-teen kids wish that out family was more democratic, but that is unworkable; some tyranny must exist (at least in my house) for there to be any semblance of order. I think we can agree that tyranny in the right circumstances is appropriate and beneficial - it is not inherently evil.

So, given ONLY the two choices of freedom without peace, or peace without freedom, I would choose the latter.

Of course, the world is not that black and white.

Interesting.

Yep. We are different. My wife chose the peace without freedom option as well.

For me it's trust. I just don't have it where control structures are concerned. People are just asses and that means we need to check them with lots of other people, if we are to have any reasonable existance at all.

I suppose the no freedom option would be more appealing, if I agreed with our dictator!

In the extreme control scenario, there are no alliances, no shared struggles (well, there is one shared struggle I guess), no discovery, etc... If any of those unknowns are on the table, people will differ and conflict is born.

(puts freudian hat on)

I propose you would much rather live in fantasy than reality. At your core, you are one who seeks escape. ---Disneyland, so to speak.

Of your scenarios, both are false of course. They are too coarse. However, the one where we have conflict and no peace is more closely aligned with the reality we live in today.

I like Disneyland, but only for a short time. Too much control...

Here's another counter idea: In the control scenario, you've surrendered choice for peace. In the freedom scenario, you get to choose your conflict! There is a chance for conflict to be healthy and good, thus that scenario presents hope in the form of one being free enough to carve out an existance that fits them, rather than just deal with one that may be acceptable, but not well aligned with the soul.

DA...
Anything POSITIVE coming from your keyboard is a compliment.....

WE ALL thank you...