Murdoch to achieve carbon neutrality with credits, but Fox employees call them a sham
SUMMARY: In a recent article, London-based magazine Environment Finance reported that Rupert Murdoch will take steps "to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from his media empire" -- which includes Fox News Channel -- "to zero by 2010." However, in addition to Fox News' Sean Hannity and John Gibson, FoxNews.com posts have directly attacked the purchasing of carbon credits to offset one's "carbon footprint" and have mocked Al Gore's reported use of them.
In a May 10 online article, London-based magazine Environment Finance reported that News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch will take steps "to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from his media empire" -- which includes Fox News Channel -- "to zero by 2010." According to the article, "News Corp will adopt energy efficiency measures and buy renewable energy to cut emissions as much as possible, then offset the rest using carbon credits. The firm will start buying credits from a wind farm project in India this year." However, in addition to attacks by Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and John Gibson, FoxNews.com posts have directly attacked the purchasing of carbon credits to offset one's "carbon footprint" and have mocked former Vice President Al Gore's reported use of them.
On March 25, following Gore's appearance on Capitol Hill to testify on the effects of global warming, Fox News business correspondent Terry Keenan wrote: "Get ready to hear a lot about carbon-neutral living in the days and months ahead. It's the new euphemism for Escalade-driving environmentalists who 'purchase' carbon credits to assuage any guilt about their private jets and 20,000 square foot summer homes." Keenan later added: "How do these carbon offsets actually work? Well, like a charm if you're in the business of buying your way out of looking like a hypocrite." He concluded: "Yet Gore and the other greenies seem to be sleeping well at night, content that all of this paper shuffling allows them to live in carbon neutral bliss. What power these little credits possess -- conferring upon their owners the right to consume carbon with abandon, while enjoying the moral high ground to lecture to the rest of us to cut back on energy."
Additionally, in a May 11, 2006, post to his "Junk Science" column on FoxNews.com, Steven Milloy, adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, asserted that "[t]he goal of becoming 'carbon neutral' " is to "alleviate your guilt," adding: "The more entrepreneurial of these web sites [those that calculate your carbon footprint] then try to capitalize (literally) on any feelings of guilt you may have by offering to relieve your conscience (and wallet) through the purchase of so-called 'carbon offsets.' " He concluded: "Your carbon footprint? Carbon offset-buyer beware. It's a gimmick designed to part you from your money without providing any measurable environmental benefit."
Hannity has been critical of Gore's advocacy of environmental measures to reduce global warming, in particular, attacking Gore's reported use of carbon offsets. Examples of his criticism include:
- Discussing "lies" about global warming on the April 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, Hannity claimed that "carbon credits are a sham" and asserted: "Big environmental lie No. 2: It's OK if Learjet liberals fly around in private jets, because they buy carbon offsets."
- During the March 25 edition of Hannity's America, while
discussing Gore's March 21 testimony on global warming before the
House and Senate environment committees, Hannity asked Drew Johnson,
president of the Tennessee
Center for Policy
Research (TCPR), to "[e]xplain this ridiculous concept that liberals
are trying to throw on us about carbon offsets that they can buy sort of
like indulgences."
Johnson replied: "With carbon offsets, you are essentially saying you are allowing rich liberals ... to pay for a little kid somewhere in a third world country to plant a tree on your behalf to help clean up the environment. You are essentially saying, 'I don't care enough about the environment to take steps in my own life, so I'm going to spend my money to encourage some little kid somewhere in a third world country and ask him to do something." Hannity added: "I won't stop polluting the planet, I'll just, you know, plant a tree and then my conscience is free."
- On the March 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, after Air America's EcoTalk host Betsy Rosenberg noted that Gore was reportedly using carbon offsets to minimize his ecological footprint, Hannity stated: "Carbon offsets is a crock, and you know it." He later claimed: "If you're Al Gore and a liberal, you can be a hypocrite."
During the February 27 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, Gibson claimed that, "instead of cutting back on his energy, he's using his greenbacks to buy energy credits." He later asked: "Is Al Gore an environmental fraud?" Like Hannity, Gibson hosted TCPR's Johnson, who said of Gore's environmental measures: "As far as the vouchers and the carbon credits and things like that, it seems like it's a way for him to buy his way out of his own guilt, perhaps." He added: "[I]t's hypocrisy, plain and simple."
In a February 27 article, The Tennessean reported that a Gore spokesperson said the former vice president has limited his carbon footprint in the following ways:
Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.
[...]
The Green Power Switch program isn't all that Gore and his wife, Tipper, are doing, [Gore spokeswoman Kalee] Krider said.
They use compact fluorescent light bulbs and are in the midst of a renovation project that includes having solar panels installed on their home to reduce fossil fuel consumption, she said.
Their car? A Lexis hybrid SUV.
"They, of course, also do the carbon emissions offset," she said.
That means figuring out how much carbon is emitted from home power use, and vehicle and plane travel, then paying for projects that will offset that with use of renewable energy, such as solar power.
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said.
According to its website, "Environmental Finance is a monthly magazine covering the ever-increasing impact of environmental issues on the lending, insurance, investment and trading decisions affecting industry."
From the April 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: Big environmental lie No. 2: It's OK if Learjet liberals fly around in private jets, because they buy carbon offsets.
Now, for every bad deed, like driving in a car or flying in an airplane, companies are now selling these carbon offsets to minimize the impact of our so-called carbon footprints on the environment.
Now you can learn all about this on the website for Al Gore's movie, on which you can calculate just how bad you are for the environment. The problem is, is that there is no standard for these companies to follow. As the left-wing magazine The Nation has reported, just about anything qualifies as an offset.
In the case of TerraPass, a carbon offset supplier to the rich, famous, and jet-set crowds, Business Week has that they are paying an Arkansas company, called Waste Management, for environmental practices that were already in place before TerraPass came along.
Just this week, an investigation by the Financial Times revealed that some carbon offset companies are guilty of selling worthless credits, providing credits of almost no value, and paying industrial companies for energy efficiency gains for which they have already benefited.
In short, carbon credits are a sham -- and, keep in mind, the people who buy these offsets are the same people who refuse to allow wind farms off Cape Cod because they aren't pretty.
Environmentalism is great, but just not in their backyard.
From the March 25 edition of Hannity's America:
HANNITY: So, all right, we've got the private jet use; we've got 20 times the use of electricity than the average American uses in just one of his three homes; we've got the zinc mine. And then I want to go to -- his answer every time -- and I applaud Senator Inhofe for asking him about this -- he always says, "Well, no, my family buys carbon offsets." But in fact, as you point out here, he helped found this group Generation Investment Management. So, he's not really buying carbon offsets from anything other than his own company -- in other words, sort of investing in his own company, isn't he?
JOHNSON: Exactly. And as I understand it, the offsets that he purchases are actually benefits from this company. So, he is not purchasing any offsets through his own pocket.
HANNITY: All right, explain what this is for the average American that has no idea, you know, if polluting the planet -- if we had a planetary emergency like this, you would think he would just lower his pollution rate.
JOHNSON: Right.
HANNITY: Explain this ridiculous concept that liberals are trying to throw on us about carbon offsets that they can buy sort of like indulgences.
JOHNSON: With carbon offsets, you are essentially saying you are allowing rich liberals to go buy -- to pay for a little kid somewhere in a third world country to plant a tree on your behalf to help clean up the environment. You're essentially saying, "I don't care enough about the environment to take steps in my own life, so I'm going to spend my money to encourage some little kid somewhere in a third would country and ask him to do something."
HANNITY: "I won't stop polluting the planet, I'll just, you know, plant a tree and then my conscience is free."
JOHNSON: Right. It's a way to buy off your guilt.
From the March 19 edition of Hannity & Colmes:
HORNER: If you follow Gore's record, it's -- you know about this story. It's been out there everywhere but the establishment press for about 15 years. Why did The Tennessean, clearly an establishment outlet, choose to publish it now? Because his hypocrisy is redefining hypocrisy. It's not anything about the mine; it's the hypocrisy, stupid. And don't say, "you guys" --
HANNITY: Well, Betsy, let me --
HANNITY: Hang on a second. Betsy, let me stay on this point. Let me stay on this point. If you go to look at his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, they have signs up there recommending, you know, when possible, use mass transit. Use light rail. If you can, walk or ride your bicycle.
ROSENBERG: Do you do that? Do you do that?
HANNITY: Hang on a second. Now we discover Mr. --
HORNER: He's not the Arch Druid.
HANNITY: -- Mr., you know, he advises us to walk. He travels around the world in private jets himself.
ROSENBERG: And he's doing carbon offsets 100 percent -- carbon offsets.
HANNITY: Carbon offsets is a crock, and you know it. He uses 22 times the amount --
ROSENBERG: It's a start. It's a start.
[...]
ROSENBERG: It doesn't matter. It's all a smokescreen.
HANNITY: Oh, it doesn't matter.
ROSENBERG: You're avoiding the truth. What about the --
HORNER: It doesn't matter.
ROSENBERG: -- truth about climate change scares you so much?
HORNER: It doesn't matter.
ROSENBERG: No --
HANNITY: It doesn't matter.
ROSENBERG: -- because it's the past, and we need to look forward --
HANNITY: If you're Al Gore and a liberal, you can be a hypocrite.
ROSENBERG: -- and we all need to look at our own ecological footprints --
HORNER: He's not an average American, remember?
ROSENBERG: -- including Al Gore, including Al Gore.
HANNITY: Yeah, OK. But, it -- so should he give up flying in private jets?
HORNER: He's not an average American. Betsy just said so.
HANNITY: Should he give up -- I mean, should he --
ROSENBERG: Have we all --
HANNITY: -- cut back on his electrical uses?
ROSENBERG: Who among has not looked at their own eco-footprint? He should. Absolutely. And in the meantime, he's doing carbon offsets. We all should. We all need to.
HANNITY: In the meantime, he's a hypocrite, Chris Horner.
From the February 27 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: In the meantime, it's the big outrage: Why don't you practice what you preach? That's my big question to Al Gore. The former presidential candidate and environmentalist keeps pushing and pushing for everybody to jump on his green bandwagon, but in his global warming crusade, he doesn't actually play by his own rules.
GORE [video clip]: It is not as hard as you might think. We have a long way to go, but all of us can do something in our own lives to make a difference.
GIBSON: Well, what is Al Gore doing personally to make a difference? Well, it turns out he talks a lot. Gore's Tennessee mansion has now been reported to use more electricity every month than the average American household does in an entire year.
Al Gore's got plenty of cash, but instead of cutting back on his energy, he's using his greenbacks to buy energy credits. He can afford to be green if green means spending green. Is Al Gore an environmental fraud?
With me now: Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the group that put together this new report on Gore's energy consumption.
So, Drew, what is it that Gore's massive house down there in Nashville actually uses?
JOHNSON: Well, the average American uses about 11,000 kilowatt hours per year. Gore's mansion here in Nashville, which is one of three or four homes he has, used 221,000 kilowatt hours last year. So, we're talking 20 times what you and I use at home.
GIBSON: He, of course, says that he's doing everything he can to bring down the energy used in that house, to be totally green about it, and he buys energy credits. But what does all that mean?
JOHNSON: Well, when it comes down to it, when you're using 20 times more electricity than the average American, it's hard to justify your role, first of all, as a leader in this environmental movement.
But second of all, that you're acting -- you know, you're walking the walk. Obviously, he's big on talking the talk, and he's just not getting it done at his own home. As far as the vouchers and the carbon credits and things like that, it seems like it's a way for him to buy his way out of his own guilt, perhaps.
Here, we've got a man who flies around the world on private jets and then has $30,000 a year electric bills, and he is telling you and I what kind of light bulb to have in our bathrooms. It's -- it's, you know -- it's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
GIBSON: Well, I guess you're going to answer my question for me, Drew. Let me put it on the screen. Al Gore, Energy Guzzler: Mr. Green is trying -- he says he is -- or OMG [Oh my God]! What a hypocrite! You think he's a hypocrite here.
Financial Times article on various problems with carbon offsets:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
what is your suggestion then?
I would say best to tax the heck out of carbon energy and no offsets, and secondly let companies build nuclear power plants in the usa with a reasonable amount of red tape. France gets 80 percent of its energy from nuclear power.. I am at a complete loss why the usa can't do the same. The problem with the carbon offsets it ends up being like the convoluted tax code - some bright businessman or tax lawyer always finds the loopholes.
I personally know of a billionaire that lives in the USA and makes 100's of millions of dollars a year in income and pays nothing to the IRS each year. He uses a technique that is completely legal. Whenever I hear of carbon offsets it seems the same type of system to me.
The reason nuclear power plants aren't being built is mostly determined by economics -- according to a GE executive I know very well. It is simlply too expensive to build a nuclear reactor, not because of the "red tape". It is almost entirely due to the difficulty in making the reactors safe. If you are equating "red tape" to safety, then I think you are underestimating the importance and the difficulty of maintaining safety in a nuclear reactor.
There are much cheaper ways of getting energy than to gamble on nuclear power to pay off as far as the free-market is concerned.
Yes but they would be economical if you taxed coal and other carbon energy producers. I don't know where we would turn for energy if carbon was taxed out of being economical. I don't think wind or solar are as economical as nuclear on a large scale but I could be mistaken. The reason we use coal today is because it is the cheapest. Tax the co2 producing energy and this will force the market to nuclear or wind or solar. Basically China is set to build 30 new nuclear power plants by 2020. I don't know if any are slated for the usa right now - I think there are some on the drawing board.
That is true, but not very likely. Half of the nation's power comes from coal (outside of California). Middle America is not going to be too happy about higher coal taxes.
If Nuclear Power ever gets going, it will probably be due to increases in oil prices due to shortages (for some reason oil and coal track each other's prices fairly closely). Oil would have to be at a pretty high price in order to make nuclear power competitive again.
It might happen, but "red tape" is not a significant inhibitor at this time, nor will it be in the future.
I would say red tape is probably not a big factor. I think though the old "not in my backyard" is a factor. Many people might agree with nuclear, or even windmills, but just don't put them in my backyard type of argument. Can't say I blame them. I don't really want ugly windmills or especially a nuclear power plant close to me.
Ask the Ukrainians about cost-cutting measures when it comes to nuclear reactors.
No thanks.
Solar and wind, baby!
I think maybe we could go solar and wind. But wind is noisy and kills birds. Solar maybe - I don't know for sure, we need to look at the costs. I say nuclear if we cannot practically get to solar or wind. But if what the global warming people say is true, and that is debatable, we have to do something quickly.
The big problem with nuclear power is that, aside from what can go wrong now, you're creating a kind of waste that will last for about 50,000 years (I think). That's longer than the human race has existed as such. Can anyone guarantee that those wastes will not be disturbed in all that time? I don't think so. In the worst case, the mountain you stored it in may cease to exist by then. I think that just makes it a very bad idea, because someone down the road is bound to pay the price. Kind of like in The Lord of the Rings, where they could throw it in the ocean or anything like that, but the ring would still come back sooner or later. However, we have the option of not creating one to begin with.
True enough. However let us think about solar for a minute. Suppose an asteroid hits the earth and kills say 25 percent of the population. But so much dust is kicked up into the atmosphere that the sun is blocked out for 10 years. If we rely on solar and, since wind is powered by the sun, these will stop working. The remainder of mankind will die. But if we had nuclear power then we could still keep growing food with artificial lighting. Some may think this scenario is far fetched but it could happen. In fact Al Gore talked about sometime of early warning asteroid system in the past. I'm sure there are other problems with nuclear power as well. What I'm saying is that I don't know the solution but almost anything is better than the oceans going up 23 feet. Not saying which is the better plan but something has to be done. There are advantages and disadvantages to both I guess is what I'm saying and probably it will take a committee of industry, the environment, scientists, economists etc to figure out what the best solution is.
I think if the earth gets hit by a giant asteroid, electicity will be our smallest problem. Your reason for using nuclear energy like keeping a grass soup recipe in your house (by the time it's so bad you have to eat grass soup, other things will likely have killed you). Here's why: If the sun were blotted out long enough for wind power to no longer work, most plants would die, followed by most animals, followed by us. Maybe some archaebacteria would survive, but humans probably wouldn't. In any case, nuclear power would be pretty useless at that point. Wind might carry us a couple days, and there's always short term alternatives (geothermal, wood, coal) but after that, we'd be dead anyways. And seriously, what would electricity do for us anyway in that kind of a situation?
I'm mainly responding to the idea that because nuclear waste lasts 50000 years we can't risk putting it in a mountain. I think if a mountain has been stable for 100 million years then the chances of an earthquake, that is so large as to cause the stuff to leak, is probably about the same chances as an asteroid striking earth. So then if you use nuclear waste as an argument you must also consider an asteroid hitting earth - they could be argued to have the same probability.
I think your right Skettle. I think we need to look at various sources of alternate energy. All of them have thier flaws but if we use a combination of them much can be done to lower oil and fossil fuel consumption. I was think Hydrogen Fuel Cell, as well as hydro-electric power could also be useful. Scientists are also trying to figure out the whole Nuclear Fission thing, but it could be a while till that one is solved
Typical left wing hysteria.
The citizens might be able to move back to the Ukrainian city of Prypiat in less than six hundred years, give or take a century.
Skettle2000 posted:
"France gets 80 percent of its energy from nuclear power.. I am at a complete loss why the usa can't do the same. '
____________________________________________
How about thirty years of misinformation and protests from predominetly left wing environmental groups. I would rank this right beside cost as a contributing factor. MIT did a study and it's a good read:
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
nothing will do unless he lives in a tent, walks everywhere.... this is al gore we're discussing, right?
Murdoch could virtually eliminate global warming by simply duct taping Billdo's and Insannity's mouths closed.
Whew...I'm glad mmfa prints so much contextual material...because it's obvious from the article that Gore and his compatriots were thoroughly exposed as frauds.
Carbon offsets...carbon neutrality...the solution is to conserve energy...if you're so alarmed at man's footprint. When I see tangible results from the ecofreaks actually conserving...and spending for offsets...to go carbon minus...I might be impressed with their efforts.
well no, if you will read above. gore pays for his offsets to a company he founded that invests in wind and solar power around the globe. the contract for the electricity he offsets specifies it must come from solar or wind. there may be a point to complaints about carbon offsets, but gore seems to be trying to make sure they are put to the right use.
This is what we should invest in:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/02/66694[link to www.wired.com] />
NOW that is COOL !
That is pretty cool. I was also reading about solar-steam power a couple of years ago. More efficient than solar panels.
i've read about those solar towers, and the possibility of them being built in the southwest u.s. i'm sure al gore has no problem with it either. he does favor solar energy.
Yes I read about some being built in southwest. The one in Australia I think would cost around 1 billion, - with 100 billion we could build 100. I think we are spending around 100 billion in iraq anyways.
Here's the mind-boggling reality... http://costofwar.com/ estimates that we've already spent over $425 billion on Iraq. That's probably a conservative estimate, as it doesn't include future committments (veteran health care, interest payments on debt, etc) created by the war.
But your $100 billion guess is also relevant. Turns out that how much we will spend in one year at the current monthly expenditure rate. To put that in context, if we were to fund the Iraq war via a tax on gasoline, the tax would have to be approximately $5 per gallon just to cover the current monthly expenditures (again, future obligations, such as veteran care, omitted).
Did you get that link from Bill Moyers' Journal? Just wondering, because that is where I first heard of it.
No...got it from a friend.
They have had one in Dagget, about 15 miles east of Barstow since the 80's I know people who work there and it works very well. Its called SEGS Solar Energy Generating System
And how were they "exposed as frauds?" I agree that it would be best if they would conserve more energy rather than purchase these credits but the fact is they are doing something.
It's quite apparent you didn't read the article and if you did you forgot it all before posting. The article showed the various pundits on Fox News slamming Gore for purchasing these credits. They claimed they were worthless and that he was a fraud and hypocrite. But now their boss of all people is buying them and wants his companies, including Faux News, to be "neutral" through them in 3 years.
Who in this article attacks Gore? Hannity and Gibson. Wow, that is damning. The only thing that would make this more convincing would be if Beck got a job with Fox and compared the offsets with the Holocaust.
AL has been trying, he has been fighting local zoning laws for years so he could finally install solar power for his home. It is often that NIMBY stikes in this kind of situation. And it seems to me requiring what power he does purchace is contractualy requied to be solor or wind is at least trying to conserve on his part.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The Power Lobby all have their voices flying around the world on private jets paid for with $80 barrel oil giving their message of oil/coal/gas consumption and misinformation about global warming, the Green Lobby must take a bike!!.That's their argument, if Gore is the issue then tear him down and the problem goes away!!! Right??!! If Gibson and Hannity can make a hypocrite of Gore, then they saved the planet and we all can have our SUV and a healthy future for the planet! Alls well in the Neo-Con’s world, alls well in the world of the greedy, religious fanatics, and ignorant! We will have to just submit to the will of the CEO’s and corporate interests. The bottom line is the profit margin above all other considerations, huge profits today are worth the permanent demise of our eco-system tomorrow!When the World is changed forever in ways that we may never be able to repair, or restore we can console ourselves that Gibson & Hannity made a hypocrite of Gore! Our grandchildren will have to satisfy themselves with the movies, recordings of the past environment we enjoyed, and get used to the transformed waist-land, disease, and erosion of the livability of our planet!! Too hell with our children, grandchildren, heck the Revelations assure us the earth will be renewed, so what’s the worry?The fact these people have a broad forum to promote these straw-man arguments, to promote their lies for profit is further evidence that we failed our democracy and let the Neo-Cons transform our government into the greatest embarrassment of our history, an American Fascism!!Happy Thoughts;Dan GradyTo a degree, I agree with Hannity. We all need to downsize. Of course, Hannity isn't suggesting such a thing. He's trying to score political points and like most pundits (on both sides), he lacks the moral courage to engage his own hypocrisies and profligate lifestyle.
This isn't just about Al Gore and Hannity. It's about every person who mows a half acre of grass, who has a 3-bathroom home, and who can't have fun without burning fossil fuels. In other words, it's about nearly everyone.
Scientists are now predicting the return of the dustbowl, but we party on. We party on. Pass the booze and process the crude.
Holly, please don't call Shamity a 'pundit'. The word comes from the Sanskrit word for one who is wise. It is a misnomer applied to far too many media jack-asses, often by those same media jack-asses. Pundit would be an applicable term to someone like Noam Chomsky, and (perhaps) on the right of the politcal spectrum, William F. Buckley (who recently condemned the U.S. OCCUPATION of Iraq). The term pundit should apply to erudite scholars, gray eminences, and the like. Unfortunately, in popular American speech, it has come to mean, basically, someone in the media who is not an expert and whose job it is to direct public opinion.
Sorry, I heard Bay Buchanan call herself a pundit today on Hannitwit and have had this in me since. I still think it would be nice if we could change the way the word is used.
This ia actually an excellent point. If we must use Sanskrit may I suggest the term amedhas to cover the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly etc. If you do not know the meaning of this very handy work (which we should immediately add to our vocabulary) you can use this tool to look it up.
I stand gratefully corrected, Cartoon Messiah. Cute moniker, BTW.
Actually, "pundit" is correct.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
pun·dit (pŭn'dĭt) <!--BOF_HEAD-->n. <!--EOF_HEAD--> A source of opinion; a critic: a political pundit.Yes the online version of the American Heritage Dictionary (4th edition) does indeed give that definition, however this is a modern degradation of the use of the term, etymologically incorrect, and in this case, most certainly a useage that should be reconsidered. See the etymology notes accompanying the definition. Hannity is certainly no pandit (Hindi). That is why is suggested the Sanskrit term amedhas is a much better fit. Cartoon Messiah makes a good point. When the Hannitys of the world are considered pandita we are in deep trouble.
The Gore spokesman said that "their car" is a hybrid.
He can make himself feel better by buying carbon offsets...after consuming copious amounts of energy in multiple homes...but he only owns one car...foflmao.
Its amazing how the pro-business party par-excellence somehow manages to stoke a form of class-envy in its foot-soldiers. The right has managed to sell its own elites to its party members as 'just folks', yet these elites are all multi-millionares (Condi Rice was on the board of Chevron (while, AHEM, they were criminally involved with Sadaam in the Oil for Food Scandal) and had a tanker named after her). At the same time, the millionaire democrats are constantly painted by the RWNM as elitists who look down on the common man. The Bush dynasty, for example, aside from being the most powerful crime family in the world right now, is also quite wealthy, the don't hail from BFE Texas, but rather elitist CN, with a family compound in tony Kennebunkport, ME.
And yet Gore and Kerry, Bill & Hill, they're the real elitists (say this with a scornful Limbaugh sneer to your voice).
look no further than the case of franklin roosevelt, a man from a rich aristocratic new york family. and he made democrats of a whole generation of working class people. it took a while to get out of the depression, but he gave a damn, and he put programs into place to help.
And was denigrated as a class traitor by the wealthy Republicans.
Bush is actually a closet green:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php
Yes, his ranch is quite green, but if the predicted western/southwestern dust bowl develops, he'll won't be chopping brush for his photo ops. He'll be shoveling dust.
yeah, i guess he is a closet green, because the policies he's always supported, the ones that do make a difference, have not been about conserving energy or fighting pollution.
I think he's a closet green but he knows where his bread is buttered.
or oiled.
This is what I think about Bush's "green house". Say I kidnap people and torture them for fun in my basement, and eventually kill them. I do this for years and years -- untold number of victims. Then, one day, walking down the street, I see a sick kitten, so I decide to nurse it back to health. Does that negate all of the kidnapping and torture? Not to me it doesn't.
The Bush ranch was green LONG before the Gore mansion, the Edwards mansion/compound, and anybodys house the Clinton's are staying at for a sleep-over.
Gore has been preaching green for many years (I don't doubt he cares) but when it actually came to putting his money where his mouth was, well that was another story.
Let's just say he was a tad bit late to the tea party.
chyron:
FOX NEWS HYPOCRISY:
MURDOCH TO PURCHASE CARBON CREDITS WHILE FNC PUNDITS BASH GORE
thats what this is about....
How many more years do we have to watch this nonstop circlejerk in the media, rather than a halfway reasonable discussion of the issues?
I say, let the deniers bring their best arguments and the scientists can do the same. All this People magazine crap about Al Gore's house and Cameron Diaz's car is just fiddling while the world burns.
Too terribly true.
IT IS A SHAM!!!
MUDOCH INVESTED IN CARBON CREDIT CORPORATIONS AND IS MAKING A PROFIT FROM THIS SHAM!!! OF COURSE HE BUYS CARBON CREDITS.
I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS.
You don't need pills. Your doing fine on your own.
Well, ya, carbon credits are a sham. Everybody knows it but plays along. Frankly, I'm a little pissed off at the whole thing. My politics are very much on the left but I feel like the global warming argument has been dropped on my lap like many republicans feel about the religious nut jobs have forced their agenda on all republicans.
Not every republican is a religious whack job hell bent on eliminating abortion rights, social programs and the arts. I don't have the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if most republicans opposed this kind of religious zealotry in politics.
Likewise, not everybody on the left buys into the global warming scam, myself included. But it's too easy to box people in and assume they think this way or that way. Al Gore is not a voice of the entire left, he's a voice for one particular debate that can include anybody. As much as P.E.T.A is a voice for all of the left or the Klu Klutz Klan speaks for all of the right.
But like I said, it's too easy to assume these fringe radical groups are somehow representative of the entire spectrum of blue & red politics.
that's why the republicans suck up to the religious right?
What have Republicans done for the Religious Right?
Two words:
Roberts and Alito
Roberts and Alito are mainstream conservatives in my view.
Is there a significant difference between "mainstream conservative" and the "religious right" anymore with regards to the courts? How would those differences play out in court decisions? Do you have a good example of this?
I am open to change my mind about them if there is ever a significant or meaningful difference of legal opinion demonstrated between Roberts and/or Alito and Pat Robertson.
With regard to the courts you may be right. But my view is that this wasn't pandering to the Religious Right per se, because they appeal to conservatives across the board. They are well-qualified, conservative judges. Who else are Republicans going to appoint?
"Who else are Republicans going to appoint?" --Bruce
Harriet Miers maybe? Miers failure to convince religious/social conservatives of her intentions on the court appears to be the reason her nomination tanked. Roberts and Alito encountered no such measurable resistance from them that I know of.
I agree I don't know where that Meirs nomination came from but that was pretty much opposed by consevatives across the board, not just the religious right.
"What have Republicans done for the Religious Right?"
They have bestowed legitimacy to some people who were previously confined to areas in the vicinity of the lunatic fringe...
you really need to ask what they've done for the religious right?
I recommend watching Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS. In the last episode, Moyers talks about a big part of the religious right's inroads into the government through Pat Robertson's Regent University. According to Moyers:
Regent University graduates include such fine specimens as Monica Goodling and Timothy Griffin, who are both deeply involved in the recent Justice Department shenanigans.
The religious right has what would appear to be a pretty firm grip on the current administration and may be gaining influence with Giuliani and Romney (and possibly McCain) in a similar fashion.
It is pretty clear to me that the religious right has made tremendous gains under this president.
Great series. No need to watch either, just reading the transcripts will startle anyone who is not already a 30%er. Truly, the giant corporations have co-opted the religious right (just look at the book selection at wal-mart) taken control of the media, and with the co-opertion of the Chinese goverment, are enslaving the world. The underlying message that any thing that creates a profit is good, is wrong. This is the idea that needs to be debated and exposed as the evil that it is.
The only thing is I believe it is nearly impossible to beat capitalism. Capitalism seems to keep winning and winning all over the world.
Jesus, you don't get out much, do you?
Haven't been out much since I was crucified. But I might be showing up a little later.
That's the problem with conservatives -- always hanging yourselves on the cross...
Pithaugin's post appears to be a terrible attempt at satire. Don't take it seriously. If you watch ten seconds of Moyers' Journal, you can see Pithaugin has no idea what he is talking about.
I know they pander to them at election time for votes but yes I was curious what the payoff has been.
Are you kidding? Repubs have promised alot to the religious right, but they don't deliver and won't deliver. The religious right are basically morons who will follow the Repubs off a cliff at the promise of something in return. To date, the Repubs have delivered nothing to them, and never will as long as the religious right keep following them.
That's what I thought but I'm waiting for that long list of things the religious right has gained just in case.
I agree mostly.
Science inevitably suffers when its questions are mixed with politics.
As a natural skeptic, I have been taught to question all science. Maybe that makes it difficult for me to argue in support of any scientific theories as that is not what I consider a natural scientific reflex.
It seems that some are trying to treat science with the unwavering certainty offered more often by religion, which I find disturbing.
That said, I believe the other side is just as reprehensible, if not moreso because of their obvious monetary stake in the outcome.
The other side of the debate takes advantage of doubts that are present in nearly every theory and often magnifies them beyond relevance in the AGW debate.
It is increasingly difficult to find the truth in the AGW debate.
So when will Sean Hannity publicly denounce Rupert Murdoch as a hypocrite? When will Sean tell us what kind of private jet Murdoch flies and how much fuel it burns? When will Sean tell us how much energy Murdoch's mansions and offices use against the national average? Maybe when Murdoch takes away Hannity's hair dryer as an energy saving measure...
Guess this proves that Murdoch does NOT interfere with the editorial position of his journalists. That should be of some comfort to WSL employees.
If News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch (The Boss) wants to cut carbon dioxide emissions from his media empire to zero by 2010, then I suggest-for Fox employees sake- he release Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity from their contracts. At least it will reduce a lot of hot air from the station.
Thank you boss man for standing up for what's right!