Hannity hypocrisy

Mr. Hannity forever espouses the purifying benefits of keeping government out of our lives. For example, he routinely criticizes the irresponsible management of Social Security by the government. He also claims that government run health care would be a disaster.

I am not going to argue one way or another on these two examples. Rather, I am only going to point out one particular instance of selective application of his conservative beliefs. In this instance, you will plainly see that he argues for taxing a fledgling industry. Furthermore - this particular industry is one which could easily relieve US dependence on foreign oil.

OK, now for the details.

A caller to Hannity's radio show argues for extending tax credits to companies involved in R&D in solar energy. Hannity's response is that such a program is, essentially, a government program - that we do not need more government to accomplish this sort of thing .. that the free market will dictate whether an industry should survive or not.

His fundamental self-contradiction is that, while he regularly harps on the mere existance of corporate taxes, in this case corporate taxes are going to be reduced and yet he opposes such reduction.

That is essentially, the end of the argument. Simple, isn't it? He selectively applies his conservative economics to industries that matter to him (eg, oil and automobiles), and NOT to industries that threaten his vested interests.

For example, one of his long-standing advertisers is General Motors. Yet, he never adds a disclaimer to his commentary when he discusses topics that touch on matters important to GM.

I think it is important to remember how crucial GM is to Sean Hannity whenever we listen to his discussion of drilling for oil vs wind and solar.

It really is amazing how little he discusses wind and solar. He dismisses them both as fringe technologies that have little potential to free the US of its dependence on foreign oil.

But if he followed the news in these industries, he'd see the potential in both is simply astronomical. For example, an MIT researcher announced this breakthrough development just two days ago: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

One really has to think why Hannity (et. al.) are so gung ho to drill for oil in Alaska and elsewhere, when this really doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil (contrary to their claims). First of all, oil is sold on a global market. It is as if oil - regardless of its source - were pumped into a giant holding tank, and buyers purchase their oil out of this tank without the ability to distinguish the origin of any particular barrel of oil. If drilling on US soil were to be increased, then essentially all that happens is the oil companies get to profit from that drilling, but the world's dependence on mideastern oil still persists. The US drilling would increase supply .. by how much is debatable .. but even in a best case scenario, what we end up with is what we have now .. a world-wide dependence on oil, and every supplier nation being crucial. So even with the US pumping in billions of barrels of oil (if that could be acheived) the ongoing supply of oil by ALL oil exporting nations is crucial to smooth economies worldwide.

In other words, increased US oil production brings in bucks to the oil companies, but does not buffer the world (or even the US) from disruptions caused by mideastern theocracies. In such a world, the continuous flow of oil from every oil producing country is vital to world economic activity. Disruption of oil flow from even one country still adversely disrupts the entire system - regardless as to whether the US starts pumping into the sea of oil for sale.

Also, even if we allow increased drilling, how many ppl realize this oil would be destined for foreign refineries? Our current refineries cannot accept any more oil. So even domestic oil still results in dependence on foreign refined product.