Your Boss Is a Dick (A Glossary of Labor Terms, Translated)
Reformer or Hypocrite? Understanding Pope Francis
The Case Against Hitting Snooze
Iceland Sends Four Bank Bosses to the Slammer
Camden, N.J.: A Catastrophic Cautionary Tale
Back Stabbin’ Santa
Instability Surmised as North Korea Executes Kim Jong-un’s Uncle
World of Spycraft
GOP Gets Its Scrooge On
Dig led by Mike Rose
Dig led by Truthdig Staff
By Elliot D. Cohen $17.14
By Brenda Wineapple $18.45
Popular Mechanics probes the former vice president about his newly green home, his new concert series and the future of ethanol.
Watch it here.
Email to a friend
Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.
Previous item: Michael Moore on ‘The Daily Show’
Next item: Moore and Maher on ‘SiCKO’
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By S. Read, July 16, 2007 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
Get real Hondo. Today in the Washington Post, Exxon Mobil Corp. reported $8.4 billion in first-quarter profit. Exxon Mobil is on par to break their $36 billion profit from last year.
When you add all of the other Big Oil companies the total profits exceed $50 billion. No matter how you try to rationalize it they can afford some R&D.
You also said: If the government would allow the oil companies to build more refineries, and to drill domestically (which would mean ignoring the enviro lunatics).
Say what you will about the Enviro Lunatics, but is the answer really using more, drilling more, consuming more…
If the US Government would do something as simple as legislating better MPG, we would greatly solve our dependence on foreign oil. And yes the government does need to legislate this because the auto makers certainly will not do this on their own.
Most western nations and many poorer nations have stronger MPG regulation. The U.S. is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to MPG.
China has better MPG ratings than we do for goodness sakes!!!
By atheo, July 16, 2007 at 8:37 am Link to this comment
“the free market will always work”
Global warming alarmism isn’t the only fundamentalist type of movement out there, market fundamentalism is another. Beware of absolute certainties.
By Hondo, July 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment
Atheo, the free market will always work. If the government would allow the oil companies to build more refineries, and to drill domestically (which would mean ignoring the enviro lunatics), and if the government would quit taxing oil so heavily, a whole bunch of problems would be solved. Our reliance on foreign oil would be almost eliminated. Gas prices would go way down. Oil companies would make more profit, which they could sink into more R and D.
I know that $30 billion in profit sounds like a lot, but it isn’t. Oil companies have to spend billions up front, before they ever see any profit, on production and transportation of product.They are subject to the whims of foreign leaders who are not exactly stable. They can’t afford to lay out a big portion of that profit on R and D.
Skruff, I found myself agreeing totally with your comment (#86034). That scares me!
By Skruff, July 11, 2007 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment
85898 by atheo on 7/11 at 7:22 am
“Taxes on gasoline at retail pay for our roads, if those were eliminated, how would you propose that we finance them?”
Roads are another of those things we let the government do, and they do it poorly.
I suggest States (The ones that wish to lower the fuel tax burden on gas customers) do two things.
1. contract road construction and repairs to companies who know how to build and repair roads. I point to the rehabilitation of the Tappan Zee Bridge connecting Westchester and Rockland Counties in New York. Its latest rehabilitation was compleated by a private company, in record time, and under budget. ALSO the State mandated that all the work be done between 8PM and 6AM with a provision that any work which extended into rush hour resulted in a “breach of contract fee” of $10,000 per hour. Funny thing though, there were no “breaches” so no fees.
2. Tax by weight. Every person studying the issue knows that passenger cars pay the largest share of fuel tales, and do the least damage to the highways. anyone doubting that should drive the Taconic State Parkway, The Garden State Parkway, or the Sawmill. beautiful soft non-bumpy rides and low cost of maintainance when compared to the New York State Thruway or the Jersey Turnpike. The fuel tax should (like all taxes should) reflect the actual cost of use rather than the down-up socialism we support now.
By sread, July 11, 2007 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
You said: You want cleaner fuel? Reducing taxes on the oil companies will give them more money for R/D of cleaner alternatives. Its to their commercial advantage to come up with a cleaner burning product.
I think the 30 + billion dollars profit that E. Mobile made last year should be more than enough for a little R&D.
By atheo, July 11, 2007 at 7:22 am Link to this comment
I don’t know that “free market solutions” will do much good in a monopoly dominated industry. We have seen endless cases of market manipulation. That said, I would have to agree with your point that tax breaks won’t encourage new production. Taxes on gasoline at retail pay for our roads, if those were eliminated, how would you propose that we finance them?
Energy is not a luxury but a necesity, like health care or education. We all need heat, mobility, and electrical power to function in the economy. It is really a national priority to assure the egalitarian distribution of these national resources. That’s why the vast majority of nations have nationalised energy sectors.
By Skruff, July 11, 2007 at 6:33 am Link to this comment
85788 by Hondo on 7/10 at 7:22 pm
“I used to post comments on truthdig quite frequently, but stopped when registering became something of a requirement. Now that the registering thing is no longer mandated, Im posting comments again. I just dont feel comfortable registering.
Middle.american, you talk about the billions in profits made by the oil companies as if there is something wrong with all that profit. I dont see it that way. The oil companies only make 8 cents profit per gallon of gas, which I think is very reasonable. They make billions in profit because Americans use lots of oil. Thats a sign of a thriving economy, so I look at that as a good thing as well.”
Actually we agree (in part) again. ExxonMobil makes 5.2 cents a gallon on every gallon of gas, fuel oil, and bunker crude it sells. For too long we’ve blamed the oil comapnise for selling us fuel. The big increase in profits has to do with emerging economies in india, China (40% of the worlds population) and to a lesser extent in other smaller countries.
Oh, and yeah, ExxonMobil brings that profit home to Houston and New York. ExxonMobil also supports over 100,000 retirees and their spouses, and pays health insurance for the same families (including my mother) That means instead of taxpayers supporting my 90-year-old mother, she pays income tax quarterly. Instead of taxpayers paying her entire health care bill, she pays her own (except for medicare which no one in my family supports.)
This is a capitalistic society, and everyone buys the “anyone can make it” line. Unfortunately the truth is that most (the majority) of rich folks in the USA got that way by inheriting their wealth. BUT unless we are proposing a change in our economic system (an argument with which I am not enterly unsympathic) we can not vilify corportations which simply do better than the average.
Most folks could have avoided a big chunk of the fuel increase by purchasing EM stock when the prices first began their latest rise (2002) they would have doubled their money by now.
Many “poor” folks around here drive SUV’s I’m really tired of the whine of the “poor downtrodden gas customer. I have an idea, lets regulate gas again like 1973…. For those of you not driving back then I will tell you the story, BUT only on request!
By Hondo, July 10, 2007 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment
I used to post comments on truthdig quite frequently, but stopped when “registering” became something of a requirement. Now that the registering thing is no longer mandated, I’m posting comments again. I just don’t feel comfortable registering.
Middle.american, you talk about the billions in profits made by the oil companies as if there is something wrong with all that profit. I don’t see it that way. The oil companies only make 8 cents profit per gallon of gas, which I think is very reasonable. They make billions in profit because Americans use lots of oil. That’s a sign of a thriving economy, so I look at that as a good thing as well.
You do have a point with the tax subsidies. I’m against the whole concept of subsidies for any company. I would much prefer to have just a straightforward tax reduction on oil. Depending on the state, there’s anywhere from 45-55 cents of tax (fed/state/local) on every gallon of gas. It is the government, at all levels, that is price gouging.
Forget the hocus pocus of tax subsidies and just cut taxes. Also, lift the barriers which impede construction of new oil refineries and the drilling for oil on American soil and off American shores. That will increase supply and reduce cost as well.
You want cleaner fuel? Reducing taxes on the oil companies will give them more money for R/D of cleaner alternatives. It’s to their commercial advantage to come up with a cleaner burning product.
These are all free market soloutions, which will always be more successful than socialistic Mommy and Daddy Government solutions.
By middle.american, July 10, 2007 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment
Hondo, I completely understand that cleaning up America’s industries is going to cost a great amount of money. I also understand that it will do nothing to halt or even slow the pollution created by other Western and developing countries. However, in my mind, it is all about priorities in tax spending.
“Last year Exxon Mobil earned more money in one year than any company in the world ever has: $39.5 billion. That’s $3.37 billion more than they earned in 2005. Exxon earned more money per minute $75,150 than 90 percent of the U.S. population earned all year.”
“At the same time, the industry as a whole received up to $113 billion per year in direct federal subsidies, according to experts.” And will continue to until 2010 unless stopped by congress.
Why Hondo… why?
What I’m suggesting is that a company that makes over $75,000,000,000 (THAT’S BILLIONS! ) in profits over two years should not be receiving federal tax subsidies. What I am suggesting is the transfer of those specific subsidies to companies who install pollution controls on existing infrastructure as well as helping to subsidize construction of new cleaner facilities.
I agree with some of the things that you said in that last post and disagree with some as well. When I get time I would like to discuss some of them and see if we can come to some consensus on the specifics of who benefits from federal taxes, regulations and subsidies. Hondo, why don’t you register with truthdig so that we can email you through the truthdig site to continue this somewhat “off topic” subject. Your email address will be hidden from us. Or let’s find another “on topic” article to ammend this discussion to. Until then….cheers.
By Hondo, July 10, 2007 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
“Screw global warming. Lets debate the effects of all pollution on human health and work on a means to convert all of our industries to cleaner methods of production.”
That was from Middle.American. With all due respect, Middle, I think I will fight against “a means to convert all of our industries to cleaner methods of production.” What you’re talking about, of course, is a global, one-world government mandate to the industries of the West. That will ruin those industries and bankrupt the economies of Western countries, especially the U.S.
The reason why I say that is because I know that the liberal institutions that would climb on board for your solution—the U.N., the Al Gore Travelin’ Salvation Show, etc.—are not a bit interested in cleaning up the environment. If they were, we wouldn’t see such amoral pollution emanating from people like Gore. No, all they want is to institute socialism, and cultural marxism, on the rest of us and amass power for themselves.
Example—Ted Kennedy opposes a windmill energy source by his home because it will ruin the view. Al Gore supports a switch to ethanol, even though ethanol will result in more pollution and a depletion of the world’s #1 food source. Sheryl Crow supports federal mandates on using just one sheet of toilet paper because…well, nobody knows exactly why, except maybe because she’s nuts. What do all of these “wonderful environmentalists” have in common? Their behavior runs counter to their words, and shows that they don’t really care about the environment.
They just want to control our behavior and expand government power under liberal control.
By Skruff, July 9, 2007 at 6:06 am Link to this comment
85211 by Hondo on 7/08 at 6:28 pm
“Skruff—-You say that I made up quotes and attributed them to you. Well….no. Anyone with eyes can look at comment #84458 and see just exactly what you said.”
No, although you used some of my words in your semi-quotes, you twisted my meaning and regurgitated what YOU produced to push your product.
Go over the quotes again, cut and paste, delete your words “MUST” and “You make the great leap to” and try again.
Your rebuttal would not get a C in my fifth grade classroom.
By middle.american, July 8, 2007 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment
If I may step between my fellow countrymen and discuss their overtly derisive and defamatory nature of discourse. I seek real consensus from all sincere arguments surrounding the effects of global warming and the extent of man’s influence be it vast or negligible.
First let’s clarify the subject matter. Are you wanting us to contemplate the occurrence of global warming or man’s contribution to said global warming? I certainly hope that no one is trying to imply that global warming does not exist and is not occurring. Most all scientists say it is occuring regardless of the causes. Some believe that all of the Planets are warming along with ours due to solar activity. If it’s not increased solar activity then maybe it’s the gaping hole in our atmosphere or greenhouse gases allowing more heat in or keeping heat from getting out. There is quite a bit of debate about the causes of warming and the degree of severity. There are seemingly few honest debates about the occurance of the warming itself.
Instead of trying to reach consensus there are those who fervently attempt to create straw men out of anyone who is vocal on the matter. People try to confound the topics within the argument itself. This rather than allowing people to honestly debate neither the contribution of man nor debate the possible effects that climate change is having on the planet. Not to mention the devastating effects warming will continue to have on unprepared and under financed societies at large in the decades to come. Beware these attempts by some in the corporate media to obfuscate the constituents of the argument through derision, defamation, misinformation and misdirection.
Keep the argument focused on the inevitable effects that global warming will have on our water supplies, farming, strains on the energy grid, the economy, industry, jobs, political and societal unrest, famine in foreign countries, etc. I’m sure that many people with industry ties will continue to pooh pooh the occurrence of warming in an effort to delay the inevitable effects that consumer awareness will have on the U.S. economy. To those who, for monetary gain, seed words of doubt, complacency and procrastination, more power to you.
In the media, these petty tyrants have been quite effective at obscuring the focus of the debate itself. Some have effectively used our currently divisive political climate to garner party line support leading to partisan complacency. Some still try to create the illusion that “enough” scientists consider global warming a myth and that even if it occurs will not effect us in the U.S. to any degree worthy of conccern. They then go further and imply that anyone who shows concern should be considered a fear monger and labeled as liberal malcontents rather than the well meaning conscientious humanists they are. (This does not include those who are joining in the game to lobby for a carbon tax)
Can we please talk about our future as countrymen and keep our discourse civil and productive. In other words, come to the middle and avoid being so vacuously partisan. Some people are being divisive and contentious simply because they assume that someone is a “liberal.” To be blunt, that is a shameful attempt at political discourse. A petty tyrants words must be looked upon with discretion and scrutiny in regards to their intent and the validity of their arguments. But, perhaps that is their purpose. To confuse and divide. More power to you. It is your right.
P.S. Screw global warming. Let’s debate the effects of all pollution on human health and work on a means to convert all of our industries to cleaner methods of production.
By Hondo, July 8, 2007 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment
Skruff—-You say that I made up quotes and attributed them to you. Well….no. Anyone with eyes can look at comment #84458 and see just exactly what you said.
If you are having difficulties remembering what you said, you can always go back and re-read your comment.
By the way, I noticed that you didn’t provide any of the actual documentation that I asked you for. Pity!
By Skruff, July 8, 2007 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment
85030 by atheo on 7/08 at 8:44 am
(163 comments total)
“...juvenile and hostile blather indicates that he has nothing of merit to present…”
Black Kettle, Black Kettle, Black Kettle!
By atheo, July 8, 2007 at 8:44 am Link to this comment
Scruf’s juvenile and hostile blather indicates that he has nothing of merit to present.
By Skruff, July 8, 2007 at 4:27 am Link to this comment
84925 by Hondo on 7/07 at 6:52 pm
“Skruff says that all of the scientists who disagree with the global warming hysteria are being payed by corporate shills.
I never said that
“You take that trend and make a great big leap to the conclusion that this warming trend is the fault of humans and that this warming trend threatens our survival.”
I never said that
“...that the Earths population increase MUST explain global warming”
I never said that!
Incidently, I live off the profits of ExxonMobil,and I voted against Al Gore,
My problem with most people “passionate about politics” is they “know” what others think, sort of a political ESP.
By Hondo, July 7, 2007 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment
Skruff’s comments are a clear illustration of the major flaws in the pseudo-religion of global warming.
First, Skruff says that all of the scientists who disagree with the global warming hysteria are being payed by “corporate shills.” I assume you mean oil companies. OK, Skruff, let’s see your proof. Start with the following link:
That link will take you to a list of over 17,000 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, who don’t agree with Brother Gore’s Travelin’ Salvation Show. Show me, Skruff, which of those 17,000 are being payed by Big Oil, and documentyour proof.
Second, Skruff says that “10 of the warmest years on record have occured within the last 15 years. That is a trend.” Yes, Skruff, that is a trend. So what? You take that “trend” and make a great big leap to the conclusion that this warming trend is the fault of humans and that this warming trend threatens our survival. What scientific proof do you have to support those two conclusions? Did you know that Mars is getting warmer, too? They don’t have humans driving SUV’s on Mars, so I would like to hear your explanation as to why “global warming” is happening on Mars. Also, I would like you to tell me how it’s possible for climate scientists to tell me, with any degree of accuracy, what will happen with the earth’s temperature over the next 50 years. Heck, they can’t get a simple 5-day forecast right most of the time, let alone a 50 year-forecast!
Finally, you say that the Earth’s population increase MUST explain global warming. Well…no. The most likely explanation is increased solar activity. Please, though, feel free to show me an actual scientific study, that has actually used authentic scientific principles, that proves that increased population has caused global warming.
Then please talk to me about the population increase on Mars.
By Skruff, July 7, 2007 at 5:39 am Link to this comment
84625 by atheo on 7/06 at 4:02 pm
I have a spelling problem also, so I use cut-&-paste as often as possible.
By atheo, July 6, 2007 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
What has a stronger impact, “7 billion people” or the sun?
BTW, the IPCC was funded by a $1 billion contribution from population reduction fanatic Ted Turner. What’s more, some estimates of government funding for global warming research run as high as $50 billion. There is an agenda, pointing your finger at possible conflicts of interest of the skeptics is hipocracy.
By Skruff, July 6, 2007 at 6:00 am Link to this comment
84414 by Hondo on 7/05 at 11:28 pm
“A few observations from a principled conservative:
2. The worlds scientists are currently split on the issue of global warming. Specifically, they dont agree on the cause of global warming, or whether or not global warming even exists.”
a principled conservative? The world’s scientists (not in the pay of corporate shills) are sure global warming exists. One only as to mark the tempature on a chart. 10 of the warmest years on record have occured within the last 15 years. That is a trend.
The number of folks on this planet (getting close to 7 Billion) MUST contribute to global warming. just 150 short years ago the planet supported only a quater of that population. No scientist worth his salt could ignore the effects of a major population increase.
By Hondo, July 5, 2007 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment
A few observations from a principled conservative:
1. Brother Gore’s Travelin’ Salvation Show is obviously stumping for a government-mandated switch to ethanol. Is he too stupid to understand what impact that would have on the world’s food supply?
2. The world’s scientists are currently split on the issue of global warming. Specifically, they don’t agree on the cause of global warming, or whether or not global warming even exists. Why does Brother Gore’s Travelin’ Salvation Show continue to portray global warming as an issue of religious faith?
3. Since when did Popular Mechanics become part of the “Gore in 2008” campaign? Good grief! The only thing missing from that “unbiased scientific interview” (“campaign ad”) was Gore’s wife doing the “Middle Age White Woman Shuffle” like she so gracefully did during the 2000 campaign!
By Skruff, July 3, 2007 at 9:10 am Link to this comment
83453 by atheo on 7/03 at 7:32 am
“...in Gores supposed devotion to the environment there has always been a vast rift between stirring proclamation and legislative reality. Back in the late 1970s two of the hottest environmental battles concerned the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and the Tellico Dam”
I’m glad someone out there remembered the real Al Gore…
By atheo, July 3, 2007 at 7:32 am Link to this comment
I’m glad you raised the issue of Gores past environmentalism. Check your contention against what Jeffrey Sinclair has come up with:
...in Gore’s supposed devotion to the environment there has always been a vast rift between stirring proclamation and legislative reality. Back in the late 1970s two of the hottest environmental battles concerned the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and the Tellico Dam, both within the purview of the TVA. As planned, the Clinch River reactor not only was a $3 billion boondoggle of the first water but was also destabilizing in terms of the arms race, since it was scheduled to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The Congressional battle over the planned reactor stretched from the mid-1970s to 1983, when, amid growing national disquiet about nuclear power, it went down to defeat.
Gore was a fanatic defender of the reactor, the most ardent of all in the Tennessee House delegation. When the Republicans briefly captured the Senate in 1981 the senior senator from Tennessee, Howard Baker, became majority leader and made protection of the Clinch River project one of his prime tasks. He and Gore kept the fight going until the end…
A read of the entire article is highly recommended.
By Skruff, July 3, 2007 at 6:56 am Link to this comment
“STOP SUBSIDIZING POLLUTION!”
“(This post was created using an iPhone)”
That about says it all!
By S. Read, July 2, 2007 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment
For those of you who still knock Al Gore and his committment to the environment, please remember that for the last 30 years he has dedicated much of his career and focus to this issue. He was involved in environmental issues when it wasn’t in vogue.
It is so easy for these anonymous bloggers / naysayers to focus on a topic like Al Gore’s home using more energy than the rest of us.
Yes, he is rich and has a big house. So what. He has taken steps to make his home more energy efficient and is continuing to do so. Al Gore has done more to inform people about global warming than any other U.S. Politician.
By atheo, July 2, 2007 at 7:51 am Link to this comment
Richard Freeman and Marcia Merry Baker:
Look behindif you dareAl Gore, and you find the very same London-centered oligarchical financial crew that drove the 2003-2006 oil and commodity price increase…
Gore is just one of the most visible parts of the elaborate (and bi-partisan) schemes that have been set in motion under cover of climate change. Gore’s personal financial involvement is blatant, especially through Goldman Sachsa large shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), and in 2004, the creator of Gore’s very own London-based hedge fund, Generation Investment Management.
CCX has multiple interconnections with the London-run Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE), whose subsidiary is the International Petroleum Exchange, the world’s largest petroleum futures and options market. The dirty details of ICE and the Great Oil Price Swindle came out extensively at a May 8, 2006 Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing, where Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that futures speculation on the ICE was the driver for adding $20 to 25 to the price of every barrel of oil, causing hardship to industry and households, and suffering to underdeveloped nations. (The report, “The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices,” is still posted on Sen. Levin’s website).
By middle.american, July 2, 2007 at 7:13 am Link to this comment
Screw “global warming!” And by that I don’t mean that it isn’t happening. The question is why aren’t we as rabid about taxing all pollution just as fervently? Wouldn’t taxing all pollution do just as much to slow the human contribution to global warming? Not to mention that reducing all pollutions would help to save tens of thousands of lives due to pollution related diseases. Am I wrong?
Carbon doesn’t hurt anyone in an immediate health sense. Industrial pollution does. Yes regulating a reduction of carbon emissions from industries would help reduce smog and ground level ozone from coal plants and cars. But what about the tons of chemical waste from industry that end up in the air and water? What about SO2? What about pesticides, insecticides, herbicides that end up in our food?
Why aren’t we as avid about controlling all “pollution” in general anymore?
Is global warming another diversion? All of the planets are warming! What is a carbon tax going to do other than cost the median taxpayers billions while the wealthy and corporations continue to pollute all while getting tax breaks (corporate welfare) and reversing wealth distribution away from a more commonwealth.
I’m not saying that Al is the figure head of another rich get richer scheme to fleece the taxpayers and distract us from the immediate pollution issues. Heck, I have a Gore/Clinton 08’ bumper sticker on my car. I am saying that the end result of a carbon tax will result in said fleecing of the poorest taxpayers upward. Whether Al’s intentions were good or not, the result of his efforts will manifest in more taxes from more people that increase tax revenues for the Fed so that the wealthy and corporations can reep more profit.
SAY NO TO A CARBON TAX! SAY YES TO A POLLUTION TAX! SAY NO TO UPWARD WEALTH DISTRIBUTION AND STOP SUBSIDIZING POLLUTION!
If nothing else we should end subsidies to polluting industries and shift those subsidies to cleaner, more sustainable technologies. Global warming is a distraction from that even more noble cause. Again, am I wrong?
By middleamerican, July 2, 2007 at 6:29 am Link to this comment
Screw “global warming!” Let’s tax pollution PERIOD. Wouldn’t that take care of global warming also. Not to mention save tens of thousands of innocent lives from pollution related diseases. Am I wrong!?
Carbon doesn’t hurt anyone in an immediate sense. Factory pollution, coal plants, smog, ground level ozone, chemicals in water, pesticides, insecticides, preservatives in food, etc. etc. Aren’t these things just as worthy of stronger regulation? Each of these things slowly kill tens of thousands of people every year!
Why aren’t we as avid about controlling all pollution anymore?
Is global warming a diversion? All of the planets are warming! What is a carbon tax going to do? Other than cost the tax payers billions while the corporations just continue polluting. STOP SUBSIDIZING POLLUTION!
If nothing else we should end subsidies to polluting industries and shift those subsidies to sustainable and green technologies. Again, am I Wrong?
(This post was created using an iPhone)
By byron, July 1, 2007 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment
Don’t be so hard on Al. Fighting global warming and trying to bring reason back to your democracy are pretty good causes. Yes he is rich and as such uses more energy than the average citizen but if he wasn’t rich then he wouldn’t be in a position to fight these noble causes.
By DennisD, July 1, 2007 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment
Al Gore, an authority on global warming or anything else for that matter has me LOL. I didn’t know Popular Mechanics was competing with Mad Magazine for laughs.
By Margaret Currey, July 1, 2007 at 3:33 am Link to this comment
I don’t really care that Gore has a mansion, those who need a heated swimming pool all the more to them, I don’t really expect famous people to ride the subway but some do, the ex mayor of Portland, Or. does not drive a car, she uses the streetcar, so there are a lot of people who choose not to drive, of course young people all want to drive, but this country made this a fact, the more freeways that are built the more and more crowded they will become the more bridges built the more traffic, people just have to get out of their cars, that is not just this country but the whole world, in this city people are starting to take the small rail line, and when people see what is going on they will smarten up, this area of the country is always talking to people from Alaska, and are aware of the fact that the Arctic is heating up, congress might have their heads in the sand, but the people know.
Chaney’s name is posion in the west, it might be good to help the farmers, but there are no small farmers it is a big business that is why the vegetables are prepackaged, I never trusted prepackaged food, because the germs are trapped inside a bag, but people don’t want to do any labor when it comes to preparing food, so we get problems.
The main problem with bigger is it is not always better, diversity will disappear and when there is no diversity things happen, like the potato famine in Ireland, such a thing can happen. Will we go back to being small farmers again?
By atheo, June 30, 2007 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment
Gore’s 20 room private mansion uses 20 times the national U.S. average of gas and electricity, as Gore lavishes himself in his heated swimming pool while poor people and the middle class await the onslaught of carbon taxes to eviscerate any disposable income they have left.
Gore is behind the spectacle of the Live-8 style Live Earth concerts that will take place in numerous cities around the world on July 7 to raise awareness about climate change. The performers who will be showcased at these concerts include people like Madonna, who owns at least 6 gas-guzzling cars including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S.
According to a report, last year “Madonna flew as many as 100 technicians, dancers, backing singers, managers and family members on a 56-date world tour in private jets and commercial airliners.” The singer’s Confessions tour produced 440 tonnes of CO2 in four months of last year…
Meanwhile, real environmental issues like genetically modified garbage poisoning our very food supply, the disappearance of huge swathes of the bee populations across the world, deforestation and toxic waste dumping, all get buried while global warming monopolizes the attention of the phony environmental movement.
No doubt there’ll be responses to this article accusing me of denying that the planet is heating up and saying I’m on the payroll of the oil companies. For those people, I would like to remind you of the fact that it was none other than Peter Sutherland, the chairman of British Petroleum, who rallied his fellow elitists at the Trilateral Commission meeting last month, to exploit global warming in order to impose a standardized carbon tax, a measure that will create artificial scarcity and, just like peak oil, raise prices, reaping billions in profits for oil industry moguls at the very top of the ladder.
Be sure to click on the link to view John Travolta’s five jet parking facility with runways.
By THOMAS BILLIS, June 30, 2007 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment
Ah if they were only interviewing the Pres Of the United States.Imagine a Pres who can speak english and is conversant with the technologies of the day.Run Al Run.
sign up to get updates
Get Our Feed