Thursday, June 24, 2010

Beyond Ideology

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"Angel left wing, right wing, broken wing"
Kurt Cobain

Joe Lieberman is a douchebag. I don't believe that statement is particularly earth-shattering, revelatory or even controversial at this point in time, it's just a statement of fact. The only real question regarding his douchebaggery is what type of douchebag is Joe Lieberman? I think it's a legitimate question whose answer reveals more about us than it does about Joe Lieberman. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here's the latest news on the sniveling weasel:

WSJ Blogs

Washington Wire
Political Insight and Analysis From The Wall Street Journal's Capital Bureau

Lieberman Dismisses Concerns Over Internet Bill

Sen. Joseph Lieberman rejected as “misinformation” concerns raised by critics that he would want the U.S. to be able to shut down the Internet, but stressed that in “times of war” the U.S. needed more power over U.S. cyberspace.
Lieberman (I., Conn.) is a co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate last week that would give the president authority to implement “short-term emergency measures” to protect U.S. Internet networks from attack.
Lieberman said the Internet was “constantly being probed by other countries for weaknesses and that “we need the capacity for the president to say to an Internet service provider, ‘We’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from this country.’”
He cited China, which has long been criticized for its Internet censorship, as an example. “Right now, China can disconnect parts of its Internet in times of war. We need to be able to do that too.”

Now my knee jerk reaction to reading this was certainly revulsion, but I was by no means surprised. Such a proposal is par for the course in Lieberman's political career. But what caught my attention was the reference to the government of China as an example the United States should emulate. At first glance, it seems like Joementum is off in political no-man's land. Nobody likes the government of China! Well, nobody outside of the bureaucrats, technocrats and other assorted parasites of the Deep Political landscape that financially profit off their tyranny. The Right hates them for being run by the Communist Party. The Left hates them for their fascist policies. So where does that place Lieberman for lauding them? On the Right or on the Left?
I believe the answer to that question is the same answer to the question regarding the true ideological nature of China. Are they Communist or are they Fascist? Someone asked that question in a nuanced, detailed, probing manner at The answer sounds kind of smart-assed, but it's to the point:

Isn't China more "Fascist" than "Communist" now?

Since China's accession to the WTO, it has embraced corporatism, while it still is an expansionist power -- whether or not it is expansionist cannot be debated; China still retains its colonies of Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Manchuria, as well as aggression against countries around the South China Sea, and its on-going building of a military far more powerful than any other military in the East Asian region, and even rivals US power in the region. As I understand it, a loose definition of Fascism is the combination of authoritarian rule and corporatism. Also, main tenet of Fascism, I believe, is aggressive expansionism, or at least military preparedness. On the other hand, "Communism," while still authoritarian, should shun corporatism, even attempt to abolish money altogether, and it's ultimate goal (in un-corrupted form) is to reach a state of permanent peace. It seems to me that China has swung more to the side of Fascism than of Communism. China doesn't even have strong social programs (socialism emphasizes social welfare programs and is a close cousin of communism) -- even America has free K-12 education! (China used to have free pre-college education, but now the people must pay for it.) So, shouldn't the "Chinese Communist Party" (CCP) change its name to the "Chinese Fascist Party" (CFP) ? I would like to know if this has occurred to other people, or am I dead wrong and don't know anything?
  • 10 months ago

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Yes. That's correct. What they call themselves is really irrelevant.


Got that? The label is irrelevant! I believe the rationale behind that is the same regarding the ideological orientation of Joe Lieberman. Perhaps that's why as much as I openly despise the man, I must admit a grudging respect for how he singlehandedly has shown the irrelevance of partisan affiliation by ditching the Democratic Party. But regarding the question of ideology, it's irrelevant whether Joe Lieberman is a conservative or liberal, right-wing douchebag or a left-wing douchebag. Right-wing and left-wing are artificial constructs dating back to the French Revolution. America, can we stop being French, for fraks sake?! Seriously, even the modern definitions of the terms as specified by Wikipedia seem insidiously archaic from my perspective:

Left–right politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The left–right political spectrum is a common way of classifying political positions, political ideologies, or political parties along a one-dimensional political spectrum. The perspective of Left vs. Right is a broad, dialectical interpretation of complex questions. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as polar opposites, and although a particular individual or party may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another, the terms left and right are commonly used as if they described two globally opposed political families. In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order".[1]
Traditionally, the Left includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists.[2][3][4][5] The Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.[6]
The terms left and right are often used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors. In modern political rhetoric, those on the Left typically emphasize their support for working people and accuse the Right of supporting the interests of the upper class, whereas those on the Right usually emphasize their support for individualism and accuse the Left of supporting collectivism. As a result, arguments about the way the words should be used often displace arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.[7]

Thanks for the clarification, wikipedia! So is Joe Lieberman an individualistic douchebag for his self-proclaimed "Independent" affiliation? Or is he a collectivistic douchebag for proposing a policy to make our "national security" more reflective of the way China runs their people under a microscope?
This is a tough nut for me to crack on a personal level, not because ideology confounds me, but because my life has always been so entrenched in it. I grew up in a household that was Republican in name but was primarily conservative in orientation more through Catholicism, which shaped our political perspective. But my opposition to our wars of choice abroad and political oppression at home altered my perspective. I suppose it would be very easy for someone to look above at how the left-right political spectrum is delineated, then look at me and slap the label "Left" on me.
But right now, my perspective is that we're standing at the crossroads of a tectonic historical shift where our global economic infrastructure predicated on infinite growth is colliding with the diminishing returns of finite energy. It's a colossal concept to wrap your head around, and even if you do wrap your head around it as I have, it's really hard to retain an understanding of the full implications of the future we face, especially when the government, the mainstream media and all other prominent facets of our culture keep telling us that everything will be fine, i.e. the Infinite Growth Paradigm is still under control, situation normal. But when I do retain my understanding of this tectonic shift, I see these labels for their irrelevance, I see this spectrum for its archaic quaintness. You can see it now in the character of people you know; I've met many "conservatives" who strongly support the rights of working people and I've met many "liberals" who strongly support individualism. But once the reality that infinite growth on a finite planet is no longer possible becomes undeniable and our primary societal concern will be the production and transportation of food, that spectrum won't matter. I believe the political dichotomy will shift to a struggle between the forces of Justice: those who are trying to help the greatest number of people survive, and Tyranny: those who are trying to limit the number of survivors in a vain attempt to sustain the unsustainable.

So there you have it. Joe Lieberman is a Tyrannical Douchebag!

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Why I Like Mike

He's been smeared with as many negative labels as a toxic waste disposal. Crackpot. Fear-monger. Lunatic. Agent provocateur. Disinformation artist. Legend in his own mind. And my personal favorite, "batshit insane conspiracy theorist".

So who is the real Mike Ruppert? Looking back at the blog posts that I have made over the last eight months, I've either quoted Michael C. Ruppert, written posts about him or inspired by his ideas in roughly half of all my posts. Why do I keep coming back to such a controversial figure? There might be a connection that I feel with his beginnings as an LAPD narcotics investigator. He resigned from the LAPD just a year after my father requested a transfer out of there. There might also be a geographical connection; we both consider southern California our home and spent pivotal moments in Ashland, Oregon.

The real reason is timing. In 2004, I was searching all over the internet trying to make sense out of why our government, seemingly so obsessed with our national security in the aftermath of 9/11, would deliberately blow the cover of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, or gag a fired FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds. My search for the truth led me to discover a wide range of compromising links between government agencies, organized crime and corporate profits. These links included activities such as nuclear proliferation, narcotics profiteering, arms sales and global terrorism. Labeling these connections "serpentine links", I documented all of this in the first and second editions of American Judas. During my research in the summer of 2004, I also came across evidence of conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks that the Kean Commission set up to investigate the truth had either missed or deliberately omitted. It was also during this time that I learned about the concept of Peak Oil and the possibility that such a watershed event in the history of human civilization might be imminent. While I found these huge revelations fascinating, at the time they appeared to be disconnected.

All of that changed for me when I read Michael Ruppert's speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco on August 31, 2004 and purchased his book Crossing the Rubicon the following month. Here was someone who had been researching all of the issues I had, for much longer than I had, and found a connective thread in all of them. What I called "serpentine links" is what he used in connecting the dots to create what he calls a "map" of the way the world works. In later years, after more research, I came to appreciate the credit he gave to Peter Dale Scott in defining this world through the term Deep Politics. But at the time I was astounded by what Ruppert unveiled: Peak Oil was the underlying financial motive for orchestrating 9/11. Coincidentally, the "maestro" behind that orchestration was the same dark figure that I had pinned in my American Judas investigation for orchestrating the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame: Dick Cheney.

I don't know Mike Ruppert. I've only met him once, when he was gracious enough to autograph my copy of A Presidential Energy Policy at the November 13 screening of Collapse. For all I know he could be guilty of all the terrible things his critics, and they are legion on the internet, have said about him. So why do I like Mike? More often than not, I find that his research corroborates my own understanding of where our country has been and the direction we are headed. While I may not agree with his predictions about when certain events may occur, I agree with him about 90% of the time about what is coming down the pike and that we need to be prepared for it in any way we can.

With that in mind, I want to recommend the DVD of Collapse, which was just released on Tuesday, June 15. The movie really holds up upon second viewing. The bonus features do a wonderful job of enhancing the experience, both in the deleted scenes from the movie and the 2010 update of Mike Ruppert filmed a few months ago. Watch it and make up your own mind about what he has to say. I can't think of anything better to say about Collapse than what Pulitzer Prize winning film critic Roger Ebert had to say about it: "I think you owe it to yourself to see it". Considering that only one previous time in his four decade career of film reviews has Ebert ever said this about a movie, and that film, An Inconvenient Truth, went on to win the Oscar for Best Documentary, that is about as high as praise can get.

ON EDIT: If you've got an hour to kill, this lecture that Ruppert gave in Vermont on May 13 is an excellent update.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

What Is Your Vision Of The Future?

As a sci-fi movie aficionado, I've always been fascinated with visions of what life on our planet might be like in the future. When I was younger, my views of the shape of things to come tended toward techno-utopian visions like Star Wars. It may not have been utopian in the political sense where an evil Empire had subjugated the Old Republic, but it was filled with technological marvels such as intelligent robot servants, messages that could be sent holographically and spaceships that could travel at light speed. Of course it was set in a galaxy far, far away, but I couldn't help wondering when those technological advances might become a reality on my home planet.

But as I became more educated, my understanding of how our technological advances have been predicated on the consumption of finite resources, particularly oil and natural gas, altered my views on how our future might evolve. Earlier this year I wrote a review of Avatar that took this understanding into account within the universe that James Cameron constructed. Just substitute unobtanium as the resource of the 22nd century where we use oil now and the motivations driving the characters from Earth make sense. But what I didn't address in the review I wrote is: how realistic is this scenario as a vision of the future? In order for the world of 2154 as James Cameron depicts it to be realistic, we would need to have a technological breakthrough where we could safely transport human beings faster than the speed of light to other solar systems that contained planets whose natural resources we could plunder (or not, depending on the pluckiness of the natives) for our own benefit. It's a nice fictional construct that sustains an exciting universe (this is science fiction, so I buy it within the context of that medium) but ultimately I don't believe that such a breakthrough is realistic.

So my vision of the future tends to be more in the tradition of the dystopic futurist films of the 70's. I've always been a big fan of Soylent Green, which had a distinct vision of the world of 2022 as the backdrop to an entertaining, hard-boiled, film noir crime mystery. Made in 1973, this movie illustrated the effects of overpopulation and how civilization has adjusted (quite raggedly) to that reality. There's a great scene between Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson talking about "the greenhouse effect" as they peddle a stationary bicycle designed to provide them with electricity. Finally, there is the issue of food distribution where the demand is overwhelming but the supply of foods we take for granted, like meats or fruits, is meager. While I believe the way this situation is resolved is too extreme to occur realistically in 12 years from now, there are many aspects of this world that may become reality if we continue on our current non-renewable resource consumption binge.

The future might not be as gloomy as that. Logan's Run, while still a dystopic vision, is a lot more fun. The authorities had their own disturbing methods of dealing with overpopulation, but prior to their "carousel" designed to thin the herd, young people seemingly had their every whim catered to. Many aspects of this are unrealistic to me due to their techno-dependence; we simply won't have enough energy to "beam" human beings from one area of a dome the size of the Great Mall of America to the other, even if such a method of transport were invented. But I do believe the high levels of promiscuity featured in the film are a distinct possibility for the future. When an entire culture faces deprivation of some sort, be it economic or political, people react by seeking out pleasure wherever they can find it to numb the pain of their sucky reality. So I expect a lot more drinking and screwing in the future, among other things.

There was another 70's futuristic tale that as a story I found messy and sometimes pretentious, but conceptually was fascinating. Zardoz was a movie set in the future where the entire working class of people had regressed to primitive levels. The only thing that seemed to keep them going would be when they would be visited by their god, Zardoz, who addressed them as "his chosen people". Zardoz was actually a flying machine constructed by the upper class of people who retained superiority by using their monopoly on technology to keep the masses scared and ignorant, dispensing nuggets of wisdom from on high such as, "The gun is good. The penis is evil". The point of this is that those in charge are using religion to control the masses and convince them to kill whoever they want. That's what I think the point is. It's a surreal, confusing tale told in a sloppy fashion. But it sticks in my mind.

My own vision of the future contains many elements of these films, but with differences in how they will specifically manifest themselves. I don't believe that Peak Oil will completely destroy technological innovation, but I do believe that future technological advances will be allocated to those who can afford it, and the disparity between social classes will become much greater. Only the upper crust will be able to actually own new technology. I agree with Walter Mosley's vision in his book Futureland, where the working masses place in society is determined by the number of subscriptions they can afford. As class disparity increases, reactions will vary from increased pleasure seeking in affordable recreations; be it sex, inebriation or other forms of distracting entertainment, or an increase in religious fervor that necessitates abstaining from those same affordable recreations deemed "immoral" by those seeking to purify the world of what they believe has lead to their worsening predicament. Politically, this will drive Americans to elect leaders that alternate between being even more "warmongering" than Bush and when that fails to achieve any increase in prosperity, they will elect leaders even more "hopeful" than Obama. But as long as our government fails to address the fact that there are no easy solutions, that we are going to have to scrap our Infinite Growth Paradigm, relocalize our highest economic priorities and change the way money works so that it exists in harmony with the way energy works, they are going to continue to be disappointed and discontented. It won't be a Mad Max future, but it won't be The Jetsons either.

But what do you think? What is your vision of the future socially, politically, economically? Is there some type of unobtanium resource that we will discover that can replace oil and natural gas to provide us with the fuel we need to power a technologically advanced future? Will we be able to invent a way to transport humans faster than lightspeed? Where are we headed spiritually and what role will religion play in shaping our culture? I am curious to get different points of view about our possibilities for the future.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

The Dark Deep Political History of BP

Three weeks ago I wrote a blog entry that detailed the blame game being played in the wake of The Great Oil Leak of 2010. While I tried to go into detail on the responsibility we all play operating within the paradigm of an economic infrastructure predicated on cheap oil, I most certainly am not copping out a generic blame on "society" for the leak itself. That blame rests primarily on the corporation responsible for owning and lead operator of the blown out well, British Petroleum. Their history is worth noting for its dark associations:

In May 1901, William Knox D'Arcy was granted a concession by the Shah of Iran to search for oil which he discovered in May 1908.[8] This was the first commercially significant find in the Middle East. On 14 April 1909, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was incorporated to exploit this.[8] In 1923, the company secretly gave £5,000 to future Prime Minister Winston Churchill to lobby the British government to allow them to monopolise Persian oil resources.[9] In 1935, it became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).[8]
The company still held contracts to bewild on the oil industry in general, generating Bose gas in both ways, mainly in agreements with preapproved terms.
After World War II, AIOC and the Iranian government initially resisted nationalist pressure to revise AIOC's concession terms still further in Iran's favour. But in March 1951, the pro-western Prime Minister Ali Razmara was assassinated.[10] The Majlis of Iran (parliament) elected a nationalist, Mohammed Mossadeq, as prime minister. In April, the Majlis nationalised the oil industry by unanimous vote.[11] The National Iranian Oil Company was formed as a result, displacing the AIOC.[12] The AIOC withdrew its management from Iran, and organised an effective boycott of Iranian oil. The British government - which owned the AIOC - contested the nationalisation at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but its complaint was dismissed.[13]

The preceding history is the set-up for one of the pivotal events in the history of the military-industrial complex; quite ironic since Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would warn so eloquently about the dangers this complex posed to our freedom seven years later, was President at the time. The role of British Petroleum in this event was illustrated brilliantly by Octafish at Democratic Underground in this recent post:

BFEE Overthrew Iranian Democracy for BP
A reminder of who did what to whom 57 years ago, helping us get into the fix we're in today. CIA and MI6 overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and installed the Shah in order to reclaim "their" black gold:

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Vice President Richard M. Nixon greet the freshly minted Shah Reza Pahlavi to Washington, D.C.

History of BP Includes Role in 1953 Iran Coup After Nationalization of Oil

AMY GOODMAN: As we wrap-up, as tens of thousands of gallons of oil continue to spew into the Gulf of Mexico from the BP oil spill, we continue our series on BP. Yesterday we looked at their horrendous safety record on the millions of dollars they’ve spent on lobbying congress to prevent regulation. Today, we’re going to look at the history, sixty years ago, BP was called Anglo Iranian Oil Company. In an interview on DEMOCRACY NOW!, Stephen Kinzer, the former New York Times bureau chief, author of "All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror", told the story of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company’s role in the 1953 CIA coup against Iran’s popular progressive Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Let’s go to a clip of what Steven Kinzer says.

STEVEN KINZER: At the beginning of the 20th century as a result of a corrupt deal with the old dying monarchy, one British company, owned mainly by the British government, had taken control of the entire Iranian oil industry.


...What happened was that Prime Minister Mossadegh, who really was an extraordinary figure in his time, although he’s in somewhat forgotten by history, came to power in 1951 on a wave of nationalism aimed at this one great obsession, we’ve got to take back control of our oil and use the profits for the development of one of the most wretchedly impoverished nations on earth at that time. So the Iranian parliament voted unanimously for a bill to nationalize the Anglo Iranian Petroleum Co. and Mossadegh signed it and he devoted himself, during his term of office, to carrying-out that plan. To nationalize was then Britain’s largest and most profitable holding anywhere in the world. Bear in mind that the oil that fueled England all during the 1920s and 30s and 40s all came from Iran. The standard of living that people in England enjoyed all during that period was due exclusive to Iranian oil. Britain has no oil. Britain has no colonies that have oil. every factory in England, every car, every truck, every taxi, was running on oil from Iran. The Royal Navy, which was projecting British power all over the world, was fueled a hundred percent by oil from Iran. Suddenly Iran arrives and says, 'Oh, we're taking back the oil now.’ So this naturally set-off a huge crisis. And that’s the crisis that made Mossadegh really a big World figure around the early 1950s. At the end of 1951 Time magazine chose him as 'Man of the Year,' and they chose him over Winston Churchill, Douglas MacArthur, and Dwight Eisenhower; and they made the right choice because at that moment, Mossadegh really was the most important person in the world.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the former New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer. Wrote "All the Shah’s Men." Talked extensively about the Anglo Iranian Oil Company which was renamed British Petroleum. That’s BP. That does it for our show.


Here's an excellent overview from Mr. Bill Hare:

When the CIA Overthrew Iran for British Petroleum

By Bill Hare


Iran had just elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, that nation's most popular political figure.

The fact that Mossadegh was elected by the will of Iran's citizens did not deter the efforts of an invigorated CIA that used the Cold War as a pretext to move away from the fact finding agency conceived of by President Harry Truman to an aggressive international political body willing to overthrow nations in contravention of popular national will.

Mossadegh immediately angered the international power cartel with which the CIA actively interlinked. British Petroleum had been garnering the lion's share of profits from Iran's wealthy oil deposits.

Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil as a means of obtaining what he deemed to be a fairer portion of that important asset. The nationalization law was passed unanimously by the Iranian Parliament.

Despite the fact that BP was offered considerable compensation by Mossadegh his days were numbered after the nationalization bill was passed.

Richard Helms, who would later become CIA Director, was prepared to act with a close Iranian friend becoming political beneficiary. A plan was launched to overthrow Iran in a coup and hand over the reins of power to a reliable figure who would accede to the international power elite's interests on behalf of British Petroleum.


Corp Watch adds more on BP:

Hey, America! Doncha just LOVE that Imperial attitude? Who needs Democracy, anyway?
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy

For the uninitiated, BFEE stands for Bush Family Evil Empire. Certainly one of the most prominent members of that empire is Dick Cheney. It should come as no surprise that when Cheney chaired the NEPDG, his secret energy task force, BP had a prominent seat at the table:

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.
The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

Special thanks to Mike Ruppert for providing that link on his blog. I found his commentary on this situation that he wrote yesterday quite illuminating:

Wednesday, June 02, 2010


June 2, 2010, 1300 PDT -- Press and politicians are suddenly remembering NEPDG since it's just been disclosed that BP was one of the companies that got secret access to Dick Cheney's energy task frorce. And Halliburton was also directly involved in the cluster**** that led to the blowout and explosion. People who have followed me for all these years know that I have been virtually screaming since 2003 that all of the deepest, darkest secrets are in the NEPDG records. I don't think it will happen, but the one thing that could help us all most right now is to know what's in those records. They laid out Peak Oil, They looked at all their options. They saw what was coming and they began implementing a plan. What I think may happen is that some heavy-heavy backroom pressures will be brought to bear and that maybe DoJ will get a chance to (as the press will report) look at those portions of the records having to do only with BP... We all know the drill.

But if I had just one wish it would be that the whole world could see and understand everything NEPDG did. They figured out exactly how much oil and gas was left, where it was, and how they planned to deal with (steal) it. This was PNAC. This was the raison d'etre for Bush-Cheney. This was why they stole the 2000 election and for everything that followed. And if we knew what was in those records, we could build so many more lifeboats, the right ways, and in the right places.

I think it came across pretty clear in "Collapse" how passionate I am about this. That information would be the most valuable gift we could leave to future genrations. -- I don't dare let myself have hope.


For those who believe the BP-Cheney connection ended with the change of Presidential administrations, think again. Thanks to Ruppert for highlighting and kpete at Democratic Underground for providing these links:

BP hires ex-Energy Dept official for U.S. media effort

(Reuters) - BP has hired a former U.S. Department of Energy official as head of U.S. media relations, as it fights to defend its reputation in the face of political attacks and public rage over its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Anne Kolton, former head of public affairs at the DOE, starts this week, the head of group media at London-based BP, Andrew Gowers, said on Sunday.
BP's media team has been overwhelmed by press and public attention since the Deepwater Horizon rig, which BP hired to drill an oil well, exploded and sank in April, killing 11 workers and unleashing what has become the largest oil spill in U.S. history.


Most recently, Ms. Kolton served as Vice President Dick Cheney’s Campaign Press Secretary. Prior to joining the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, Ms. Kolton was Director of Public Affairs at the Department of the Treasury and previously served as Senior Advisor to Chairman William H. Donaldson at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ms. Kolton joined the Bush administration in January 2001 as Assistant Press Secretary in the White House Press Office after serving on the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign as Assistant Press Secretary to then Vice Presidential candidate Dick Cheney.

Before joining Bush-Cheney 2000, Ms. Kolton was Washington Liaison for Texas Attorney General John Cornyn.


This is the dragon we face. I share the hopes of the political activists quoted above that by publicizing and sharing the dark history of BP far and wide, we might help to slay this dragon.