In January, I was watching the Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN and I was surprised that there were absolutely no questions on global warming or energy policy. It seemed like a pretty huge oversight on the part of CNN given that we are currently fighting a 3 trillion dollar war that has cost nearly 4,000 American lives in lieu of having a domestic energy policy.
After about an hour CNN started cutting to commercial breaks. I thought, that's odd, the public owns the airwaves and this is a Presidential debate -- why are we having commercial breaks? As they went to break, CNN proudly announced that the debates were sponsored by the Orwellian-named Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) -- and again I thought, that's weird, since when are Presidential debates, sponsored by anyone other than the League of Women Voters? And CNN kept running these peppy commercials by ABEC telling people how great coal-fired power plants are! The commercials even used the song "Celebration" by Kool and Gang to put us all in that feel good mood!
It turns out that Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is a PR front group for the coal-fired power industry. ABEC is spending $35 million to try to get more coal-fired power plants built in the U.S. They have to spend $35 million on PR (and Kool and the Gang songs) because coal is a horrible energy source. Coal mining causes black lung, mining accidents, and destroys entire communities. Burning coal causes asthma, heart attacks, and shortens the lives of thousands of Americans (it may also cause autism).
The more I thought about it, the angrier I got. CNN should be ashamed of itself for taking money from these toxic monsters. And it's about time someone slapped ABEC for lying to the American people.
As it turns out, I was recording the debates. So I decided to remake the ABEC commercial with actual, real world facts about coal (and thankfully, I couldn't afford to license the Kool and the Gang song). I made two version, the funny version, and the serious version. Check 'em out:
Solar kick's coal's ass #2, Funny:
Solar kicks coal's ass, just the facts:
You can subscribe to my YouTube channel by clicking (here).
Tomorrow I'll have more on ABEC and some ideas for ways to fight back against the coal-fired power industry.
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thoughts on the Los Angeles Democratic Debate
A few random thoughts on tonight's Democratic debate in Los Angeles...
1. I thought Senator Clinton had the advantage on the first few questions involving healthcare.
2. Senator Obama's answers on the Iraq war were concise, thoughtful, and better than Senator Clinton's. I thought Senator Clinton just didn't have a good answer when asked to justify her vote on the Iraq war (and this was the 18th Democratic debate so if she doesn't have a good answer by now...)
3. I love, love, love hearing Senator Obama say, "And that's what I intend to do when I'm President of the United States." He delivers that line with such authority -- every single person in the room (including himself) can picture him as President.
4. CNN is a lousy choice to host the debate. CNN is bought and paid for by "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" -- a coal industry lobbying group. As a result there were zero questions on global warming and zero questions on energy policy (and we were forced to watch propaganda pieces touting coal fired power plants during commercial breaks). Debates should NOT be sponsored in the first place -- THE PUBLIC OWNS THE AIRWAVES. If CNN or any other network doesn't want to carry a debate for free, I think we should just put a padlock on their doors and tell them that their broadcast license will not be renewed.
5. This is becoming a really tough decision. The Democratic Party has two extraordinary choices -- the best choices we've had in a Presidential race since 1968. There are important policy differences between the two but we're really in good hands with either one.
Update #1:
An astute reader pointed out that when Senator Clinton is asked about the vote to authorize the war in Iraq, she should say: "Barack Obama was not in the United States Senate in 2002. If he had been in the U.S. Senate, he would have voted the same way I did." Case closed. The more I think about it, the more I think it's the only answer that would work.
1. I thought Senator Clinton had the advantage on the first few questions involving healthcare.
2. Senator Obama's answers on the Iraq war were concise, thoughtful, and better than Senator Clinton's. I thought Senator Clinton just didn't have a good answer when asked to justify her vote on the Iraq war (and this was the 18th Democratic debate so if she doesn't have a good answer by now...)
3. I love, love, love hearing Senator Obama say, "And that's what I intend to do when I'm President of the United States." He delivers that line with such authority -- every single person in the room (including himself) can picture him as President.
4. CNN is a lousy choice to host the debate. CNN is bought and paid for by "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" -- a coal industry lobbying group. As a result there were zero questions on global warming and zero questions on energy policy (and we were forced to watch propaganda pieces touting coal fired power plants during commercial breaks). Debates should NOT be sponsored in the first place -- THE PUBLIC OWNS THE AIRWAVES. If CNN or any other network doesn't want to carry a debate for free, I think we should just put a padlock on their doors and tell them that their broadcast license will not be renewed.
5. This is becoming a really tough decision. The Democratic Party has two extraordinary choices -- the best choices we've had in a Presidential race since 1968. There are important policy differences between the two but we're really in good hands with either one.
Update #1:
An astute reader pointed out that when Senator Clinton is asked about the vote to authorize the war in Iraq, she should say: "Barack Obama was not in the United States Senate in 2002. If he had been in the U.S. Senate, he would have voted the same way I did." Case closed. The more I think about it, the more I think it's the only answer that would work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)