In the print edition of the New York Times, a quarter-page ad appears on today’s Op-Ed page from “a concerned private citizen” citing a variety of misinformation on the issue of energy and gas, in particular, the alleged positions of Democratic candidates (primarily Barack Obama, of course).This is a sampling…
The Democrats claim that the oil companies presently are authorized to drill where 80 percent of our oil and gas resources are located. The fact is that 84 percent of our continental offshore shelf is off limit (sic) to exploration or production.The “80 percent” claim can be verified from this article, according to Connecticut U.S. House Rep Chris Murphy (with the 80 percent comprising 68 million acres). And the Connecticut Post also tells us that the offshore shelf is quite rightly off limits, in accordance with the policies of both Poppy Bush as president and Jeb Bush as former governor of Florida (and regardless, it would take years to yield any oil from the shelf; hopefully, this will never be an issue because drilling there will never take place).
And just when you thought the following lie had been refuted forever…
The Chinese are preparing to drill in Cuba waters less than 50 miles off the coast of Florida into a huge dome of natural gas.Ugh...
And this CNN Money article, by the way, tells us that when U.S. House Rep Edward Markey of MA chided an oil industry flak for the fact that no drilling is currently underway on the 68 million acres in question, he received the following answer…
"No one is sitting on leases these days," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. "Those making those assertions don't understand the bidding and leasing process."Oh really? Then how come none of the geniuses of Big Oil saw this coming? They’ve had these leases for years – why didn’t they determine when drilling should begin to increase supply to try and lower the pump price?
(The above question is pretty much irrelevant as far as I’m concerned; the answer is that I’m paying a shade under $4 a gallon in Jersey and about $4.20 in PA to fill up the Doomsymobile.)
So (getting back to the original ad), I wondered just who exactly this “concerned private citizen” was anyway.
Well, his name is Jack E. Caveney. And with the miracle of a little Googling, I found this link that tells me that Caveney is director of technology for Panduit Corporation (and is a big-time habitual donator to Repug candidates and party organizations).
And this story tells us that…
Panduit, a supplier of wiring and communication products, is building its business in Qatar and the rest of the Gulf region.Oh, and did I mention that Caveney spends a good amount of his ad decrying development of alternative energy sources?
The company is just starting to take its first orders for a selection of new projects in Qatar including Shell's Pearl gas-to-liquids plant.
…
Panduit has looked to improve it (sic) profile in Saudi Arabia by taking a targeted approach to product approval with the country' (sic) national oil company. It currently has eight high-volume products, which it knows Saudi Aramco uses, going through the pre-approval process.
As the Church Lady used to say on Saturday Night Live, “well, isn’t that special?”
I’d sure like to see the Times engaged in not quite so much hand wringing over anonymous sources and maybe a little more about attribution in issue ads (just don’t publish Michael Gordon if he indulges in that practice, OK?). If Caveney wants to spend the money on the ad, that’s his right, but it’s the Times’ obligation to tell us that, on this issue anyway, he’s a lot more than “a concerned private citizen.”
5 comments:
If anyone wishes to lern more about energy, I recommend "Energy beyond Oil" by Paul Mobbs. It's fact-based, well researched and has almost no polemics. Plus most of it can be read free online, just google the title.
Are you insinuating that Jack Caveney's company is somehow "in bed with" or beholden to Big oil or middle east countries? If so, that's such a crock! Panduit Corp has customers all over the world. I'm sure their products are used in oil companies, but their also used at major american companies, government, education, etc etc. Product is most often sold through distributors too, just like all it's competitors. Any product in the places you mention would be only a drop in the bucket of what is sold compared to the rest of the world or even in the US. Just because you don't agree with his opinion, gives you no right to make such wild, unfounded accusations. Try a little critical thinking and fact based reasoning instead of forcing things to fit what you want to believe. Jackass!
Oh, come on, now; can’t you come up with a better, non-profane insult than that? Gosh, I haven’t been called a “libtard” since I can remember. How about that one?
Jack Caveney has the right to turn a buck anyway he knows how; that is not in dispute as far as I’m concerned as long as he’s doing it legally, and that appears to be the case. The issue is primarily one with the Times for not disclosing who he is as far as I’m concerned, even though Caveney paid for an ad and did not write a published editorial.
If you’re defensive about his customers or the way he does business, that’s not my problem. Try turning down the umbrage meter and giving that some thought, OK?
Interesting how you make commentary insisting that the Times disclose the political leanings of a contributor. Do you also demand that they expose the likes of Geo. Soros and all his election tampering via injection of his billions? Or is your comment a one way street?
All I’m saying is that Caveney should have had more of a description after his name than “a concerned private citizen,” which I think I already pointed out…maybe “A concerned private citizen who stands to reap a substantial payoff for an industry-friendly energy policy” would be closer to the truth. And none of this has anything to do with George Soros.
Post a Comment