An Inconvenient Utility Bill

After watching the Academy Awards on Sunday night I coined a new term to describe the way in which the stars fawned over Al Gore: Goreship. The adoration heeped upon Gore during the show by the likes of Melissa Etheridge and Leo DeCaprio was just creepy. The entire audience broke out in rapturous applause as he collected the Oscar for Documentary Feature for his film An Inconvenient Truth acting as though they were being visited by a demi-Gore. And the Goracle of Global Warming (coined by Captain Ed) even had coattails--Etheridge's insipid song in Truth beat out far superior tunes from the movie Dreamgirls for the Oscar in the Music (Song) category, an act reminiscent of the Grammy's Jethro Tull Moment.

It's irritating when pampered stars, who travel by private jet and stretch limo, lecture others about how they should live. Even Al Gore apparently doesn't follow his own advice.

Gore’s mansion, located in the poseh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

UPDATE: Al Gore has responded via Think Progress:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

I think Captain Ed has it right:

Interesting that he doesn't dispute the numbers; he just tries a little misdirection instead.

First, the solar panels and the compact fluorescent light bulbs will certainly make a difference -- but the TCPR report looks at his electricity bill, which still indicates (a) a high level of usage, and (b) an increase since the movie's release. Solar panels generate electricity at the location, which should then decrease the amount of power he's buying from the utility. If it's still going up, there seems to be a serious management problem somewhere.

Second, as I mentioned above, purchasing offsets only means that Gore doesn't want to make the same kind of sacrifices that he's asking other families to make. He's using a modern form of indulgences in order to avoid doing the penance that global-warming activism demands of others. It means that the very rich can continue to suck up energy and raise the price and the demand for electricity and natural gas, while families struggle with their energy costs and face increasing government regulation and taxation. It's a regressive plan that Gore's supporters would decry if the same kind of scheme were applied to a national sales tax, for instance. (italics mine)

And basically, it doesn't address the issue of hypocrisy. If Gore and his family continue to increase their consumption of commercial energy with all of the resources they have at hand, then they have no business lecturing the rest of us on conservation and down-scaling our own use. (via The Anchoress)

Amen.

Ed-Words Hurt

The blogosphere is abuzz with the brouhaha over two lefty bloggers that were hired and apparently fired by the John Edwards campaign for anti-Catholic remarks made on their blogs. It seems the bloggers in question, Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespear's Sister, have written some things that aren't very...shall we say...diplomatic. Here's Marcotte on the virgin birth:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Charming.

Look, I'm all for people spewing whatever vile hatred that resides in their hearts on their personal blogs. Whatever. That the Edwards campaign failed to vet their new-hires more closely before making them part of the team seems odd, particularly when considering that Catholic voters are a key audience to which Edwards is tageting his populist message. Then again, this is the same guy who had to interrupt his busy schedule in the midst of building his 28,000-SF mansion in order to kick off his presidential campaign from New Orleans. So much for symbolism, John.

Mary Katherine Ham @ Townhall has a few observations. Here's one:

At 28,000 square feet and 100 acres, if there are two Americas, I'm sure John can pony up and house at least one of them.

UPDATE: It looks as though Edwards is keeping the bloggers on the payroll, after getting assurances "that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith." I'm not buying it. Either is the religious left.

Kathryn Jean Lopez wonders how the Edwards campaign would’ve reacted if Marcotte had said something equally offensive about Mohammed.

A Muslim Defends '24'

I found this article refreshing, in light of the political correctness that pervades our society. It is an opinion article written by an American Muslim about the hit show '24'.

I am an Arab-American as well as a fan of "24." The two things are not mutually exclusive, despite what the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other such groups have to say about this season's opening episodes possibly increasing anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice in American society.

Most of the terrorists represented in "24" through the years have been Arab Muslims. Why? Well, probably because most terrorists today are, in fact, Arab Muslims. As a descendant of Syrian Muslims, I am very well aware that the majority of Muslims world-wide are peaceful, hard working, and law abiding. That still does not change the fact that the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. today comes not from the ETA, the IRA, etc., but from one group: Islamic terrorists.

And this is what makes "24" a compelling drama every week. Instead of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist, the show presents frighteningly real worst-case scenarios perpetrated by Osama bin Laden's followers. So CAIR thinks it's over the top for the terrorists in "24" to blow up Los Angeles with a nuke? Please, if bin Laden and his crew had nukes, most of us would be way too dead to argue over such points.

There is a dangerous trend in the U.S. today that involves skirting the truth at the risk of offending any individual or group. When Bill Cosby talks to African-Americans about self-respect and responsibility, and says publicly what many have been saying privately for years, he's branded a "reactionary," "misinformed," "judgmental," and so on. When "24" confronts America's worst fears about al Qaeda--whose goal remains to kill as many Americans as possible whenever possible--the show is said to be guilty of fueling anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice.

Well, here's the hard, cold truth: When Islamic terrorists stop being a threat to America's survival, viewers will lose interest in "24," because it will have lost its relevancy. Until such time, I will continue to watch "24"--because, believe it or not, the idea that there are Jack Bauers out there in real life risking their lives to save ours does mean something to me.

On Giuliani's Bid

The Presidential election cycle begins seems to begin earlier every 4 years. Although we are more than 1-1/2 years from the next election, Democrat and Repbulican presidential candidates are attempting to outflank each other in hopes of attaining their party's nomination. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appear to have taken the early lead for the Democrats, while John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani (despite not officially declaring his candidacy) look to be the early front-runners on the Republican side.

For me, it is way too early to decide for whom I will vote. That will play out over the next year or so. However, I did run across an article about Giuliani today that gave a pretty comprehensive run-down of his accomplishments as the Mayor of New York City. The article attempts to show his credentials as a conservative, for which he is not generally regarded, due to his three marriages and his support for abortion rights, gay unions, and curbs on gun ownership. Here's a sample:

Today, Americans see Giuliani as presidential material because of his leadership in the wake of the terrorist attacks, but to those of us who watched him first manage America’s biggest city when it was crime-ridden, financially shaky, and plagued by doubts about its future as employers and educated and prosperous residents fled in droves, Giuliani’s leadership on 9/11 came as no surprise. What Americans saw after the attacks is a combination of attributes that Giuliani governed with all along: the tough-mindedness that had gotten him through earlier civic crises, a no-nonsense and efficient management style, and a clarity and directness of speech that made plain what he thought needed to be done and how he would do it.