I don't know about you guys, but I really hate those ExxonMobil commercials that run every night on MSNBC claiming to "care about the children." They're aimed at improving education, but we all know it's a well-oiled public relations campaign intended to make them look good for something while they do whatever they can to destroy the environment.

Well, this commercial -- brought to you courtesy of Oil Change International and The Other 98% -- answers them. And guess what: ExxonMobil really hates it. Why? Because it tells the stark, horrible truth about how Big Oil and ExxonMobil harms children in real ways, far more than having a bad score on a standardized test. It has them so aggravated that they're pushing to have the ads removed.

Via The Hill:

“The campaign is offensive to the thousands of ExxonMobil employees and contractors who work hard every day to deliver an essential product in a safe and environmentally responsible way,” the company said in a statement Wednesday.

Well, shoot. I'm sorry, ExxonMobil, but it simply tells the truth about what you're really doing.

The company and oil industry more broadly are battling proposals to end tax deductions, arguing the efforts unfairly single out the industry for punishment and would stymie energy development.

Oil industry critics say that the tax code should not reward fossil fuel development at a time when scientists are increasingly sounding the alarmabout runaway global warming.

In this day of real-time news, it's really impossible for Big Oil to disguise their malfeasance and greed with slick education reform PR campaigns. That's what they really hate.

DOWNLOADS: (701)

PLAYS: (1475)

Embed

All of us are watching what's happening in Japan with wide-eyed horror. A country hit with a 9.0 earthquake followed by a 30-foot tsunami followed by possible partial meltdowns in more than one reactor is more disaster than any single country deserves.

But while the first two are acts of nature, the third is man's own doing and no one else's. As a Californian, seeing this disaster unfold in real time has been almost too much to bear, especially knowing there's a nuclear power plant about 100 miles or so down the coast in an earthquake-prone state. San Onofre nuclear generating station's operating reactors were built in 1982 and 1983 and took into account the earthquake technology available at the time.

Since Japan's disaster, many Californians are questioning the wisdom and safety of a nuclear reactor on the California coast. Well, let's leave it to Bill Hemmer to reassure us all that it's just perfectly fine because it has a 25-foot seawall and is certified for a 7.0 earthquake. Again, to review Japan's current predicament:

1. 9.0 earthquake
2. 30-foot tsunami

How exactly should we feel reassured about a nuclear reactor that officials claim will withstand a 7.0 earthquake and is protected by a 25-foot sea wall? Just for perspective, the Northridge earthquake was 6.8 and was not considered being even close to "The Big One" we're all expecting here in California at some point.

But San Onofre isn't the only power plant on the California coast. There's the El Diablo Canyon plant located near Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo. That plant's specs certify it to a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. It also lies close to 4 separate earthquake faults.

Experts are predicting that the next quake on the San Andreas Fault could be up to an 8.1.

When? Thomas Jordan, Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center, has said repeatedly that the San Andreas fault is "locked and loaded. It's been a long time since an earthquake has occurred on that fault — over 150 years."

We are being reassured that quakes of around 8 are the most we could expect in California because the fault geology is different here than it is in Japan. In fact the biggest quake recorded in California history was the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake, on the San Andreas fault, which reached 7.9.

This segment seems so mild and calm, but it plays right into the agenda we're seeing in play right now touting nuclear power as being so "clean" and "safe". For many Californians watching the tragedy in Japan, there's nothing clean, safe or desirable about it at all. That includes me. Why not solar? Why not anything but nuclear? Why is it that in 30-plus years there hasn't been more development of alternatives? Oh, wait. I know the answer. Thanks, Exxon/Mobil and Chevron.

Many themes run through the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables released thus far, but only one runs through the heart of all of them. Underneath diplomacy and protocol, the US Chamber of Commerce and its clients around the world have a thumbprint on every single economy, even in countries like Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez is in full control of his own country and remains busy destabilizing others.

In a cable dated October 15, 2009, Ambassador Patrick Duddy relays a basketful of concerns expressed to him by Chevron, Baker/Hughes and the Venezuelan/American Chamber of Commerce.

Baker Hughes, XXXXXXXXXXXX shared that doing business in Venezuela is increasingly difficult, noting that where there used to be seven steps required to export a container from Venezuela, there are now over thirty steps imposed by GBRV agencies. XXXXXXXXXXXX confirmed that BHI has removed higher-technology assets from Venezuela.

That complaint sounds familiar, doesn't it? They all hate bureaucracy.

Chevron, on the other hand, has figured out a way to pull out the profit without investing anything in the country. Guess they're using the lessons they've learned here at home.

ChevronXXXXXXXXXXXX told the Ambassador XXXXXXXXXXXX that the company’s two Maracaibo joint ventures (JV ) Petroboscan and Petroindependiente) with PDVSA are profitable especially since Chevron is not investing new funds. He confided that although the JVs owe over $100 million to various service companies, Chevron is withdrawing profits through a deal to take crude oil shipments from Petroboscan to its Pascagoula refinery in Alabama.

Enter the US Chamber of Commerce with their list of complaints:

The Ambassador also attended a dinner hosted by the Zulia chapter of the Venezuelan-American Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber participants echoed well-known concerns regarding the difficulties with the CADIVI foreign exchange controls and voiced caution regarding the use of the parallel permuta rate because they do not want to be seen as possibly operating on the margins of Venezuelan law. A XXXXXXXXXXXX manufacturer mentioned that he is no longer able to import material from Europe using CADIVI. He fears his production costs will significantly erode his company’s competitiveness if he imports the fabric using the permuta exchange market.

To which I show him the world's tiniest flea playing the world's tiniest violin. Let's back up and remember why these US companies are in Venezuela. Here's the answer, in the Ambassador's conclusion:

The two perspectives on doing business in Venezuela presented by Chevron and BHI underline the private sector’s difficult situation -- faced with increased risk, companies are not investing in operations but are seeking ways to maintain a market presence given the tremendous opportunities that may yet exist in Venezuela,s oil sector.

It's all about the oil, baby. And the US Chamber. And commerce. Human rights? Meh. Chavez destabilizing Honduras, other countries? Meh. Oil trumps all.

If you don't believe that, check out this cable from 2007 written under the Bush administration.

As Chavez seeks to take on the mantle of this generation',s Castro, he starts with built-in advantages, not the least of which is a whole lot of money. Add to that the bluster of his anti-imperial, anti-U.S. rhetoric, and a certain squirrelly charisma, both of which continue to find a sympathetic audience in much of Latin America, and he presents a formidable foe. But he certainly can be taken. Washington policy-makers have already hit on one sure-fire tactic: Don,t fire back at every provocation, especially when it,s clear that Chavez,s mouth has opened before his brain has engaged. His recent dust-ups with both the Brazilian and Chilean senates over the RCTV closure are examples where Chavez,s ranting lost him points with ostensible friends without our having to lift a finger.

Is it any wonder the Ambassador was expelled because Chavez suspected an overthrow effort?