Hope everyone got to see this!
Gore films conservation piece for Oprah Monday, 04 December 2006
(Nashville Tennessean) - Al Gore was at the Lowe's Home Improvement store in Franklin Sunday shooting a spot on energy saving appliances for the Oprah Winfrey talk show.
The former vice president and Tennessee senator led a camera crew through the store, making note of how people can save money on their energy bills and help conserve the planet's natural resources in the process.
With winter approaching, Gore focused on alternative means of heating. He also suggested purchasing a programmable thermostat that can automatically conserve energy when no one is home.
Other products noted include: new gas grills which are more efficient, compact fluorescent lights that can save $40 to $50 in energy costs annually, and Energy Star washing machines that conserve 8,000 gallons of water over the machine's lifetime.
"It's exciting to have Mr. Gore at our store," said Jeff Willis, Lowe's store manager. "And it's good that he's helping people save on their energy bills."
The piece is scheduled to air Dec. 11.
By John Boan
http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=428&Itemid=81
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish
Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'An Inconvenient Spoof'
The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/al-gore-youtube-spoof-not-so-amateurish/20060805132409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/al-gore-youtube-spoof-not-so-amateurish/20060805132409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Monday, December 04, 2006
The Environment is not convenient enough for science teachers
An Inconvenient Truth Squeezed from Classrooms
The producers of An Inconvenient Truth have offered to supply American classrooms with 50,000 copies of the movie free of charge. That offer has been rejected by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the nation's leading science education teachers group, citing a risk to funding from key financial supporters. One of those supporters is Exxon-Mobil. The news was buried deep in the Washington Post website and reported by Laurie David, a producer of the film and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org
In their e-mail rejection, they (NSTA) expressed concern that other "special interests" might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film; and they saw "little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs.
Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film's theatrical run is long since over. As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide, and is required viewing for all students in Norway and Sweden.
Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.
Oil industry supporters will be quick to endorse the decision, agreeing that An Inconvenient Truth does indeed represent a special interest. What they will conveniently ignore is that unlike industry friendly messages pushed into the curriculum, An Inconvenient Truth is based on, and endorsed by, objective science - the very subject the National Science Teachers Association says it promotes.What truth is more inconvenient? It depends where your pay cheque comes from.
http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006/11/inconvenient-truth-squeezed-from.html
Meanwhile in Scotland...
Firm offers to pay for pupils to see Gore film
IAN JOHNSTON ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
EVERY schoolchild in Scotland is to be offered the chance to see former US vice-president Al Gore's film about the dangers of global warming under a scheme by energy company ScottishPower.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1795672006
The producers of An Inconvenient Truth have offered to supply American classrooms with 50,000 copies of the movie free of charge. That offer has been rejected by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the nation's leading science education teachers group, citing a risk to funding from key financial supporters. One of those supporters is Exxon-Mobil. The news was buried deep in the Washington Post website and reported by Laurie David, a producer of the film and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org
In their e-mail rejection, they (NSTA) expressed concern that other "special interests" might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film; and they saw "little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs.
Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film's theatrical run is long since over. As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide, and is required viewing for all students in Norway and Sweden.
Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.
Oil industry supporters will be quick to endorse the decision, agreeing that An Inconvenient Truth does indeed represent a special interest. What they will conveniently ignore is that unlike industry friendly messages pushed into the curriculum, An Inconvenient Truth is based on, and endorsed by, objective science - the very subject the National Science Teachers Association says it promotes.What truth is more inconvenient? It depends where your pay cheque comes from.
http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006/11/inconvenient-truth-squeezed-from.html
Meanwhile in Scotland...
Firm offers to pay for pupils to see Gore film
IAN JOHNSTON ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
EVERY schoolchild in Scotland is to be offered the chance to see former US vice-president Al Gore's film about the dangers of global warming under a scheme by energy company ScottishPower.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1795672006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Right Wing Sanctity of Marraige?
Examples of the Right Wing Sanctity of Marraige:
The sanctity of marriage?
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey, House Majority Leader - divorced
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced
Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced
George Will - divorced
Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced
Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced
Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorcedHenry Kissinger - divorced
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced
Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced
So ... homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help!
Courtesy of http://apatheticnation.blogspot.com/
The sanctity of marriage?
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey, House Majority Leader - divorced
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced
Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced
George Will - divorced
Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced
Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced
Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorcedHenry Kissinger - divorced
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced
Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced
So ... homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help!
Courtesy of http://apatheticnation.blogspot.com/
Friday, December 01, 2006
Corporate Empires
Corporate Empires
These are numbers from ten years ago. Do you think it's changed much?
TWO HUNDRED GIANT CORPORATIONS, most of them larger than many national economies, have sales that exceed a quarter of the world's economic activity. Philip Morris is larger than New Zealand, and it operates in 170 countries. Instead of creating an integrated global village, these firms are weaving webs of production, consumption and finance that bring economic benefits to, at most, a third of the world's people. Two-thirds of the world (the bottom 20 percent of the rich countries and the bottom 80 percent of the poor countries) are either left out, marginalized or hurt by these webs of activity.
Here are five snapshots of the extent of global corporate concentration:
2.The combined sales of the world's Top 200 corporations are far greater than a quarter of the world's economic activity. The Top 200's share of global economic activity has been growing rapidly over the past decade. In 1982, the Top 200 firms had sales that were the equivalent of 24.2 percent of the world's gross domestic product (GDP). Today, that figure has grown to 28.3 percent of world GDP.
3.The Top 200 corporations' combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 9; that is they surpass the combined economies of 182 countries. At latest count, the world has 191 countries. If you subtract the GDP of the big nine economies -- the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada and China -- the combined GDP's of the other 182 countries is $6.9 trillion. The combined sales of the Top 200 corporations is $7.1 trillion.
4.The Top 200 have almost twice the economic clout of the poorest four-fifths of humanity. The world's economic income and wealth remain highly concentrated among the rich. Indeed, according to the United Nations, some 85 percent of the world's GDP is controlled by the richest fifth of humanity; only 15 percent is controlled by the poorest four-fifths. Hence, the poorer 4.5 billion people in the world account for only $3.9 trillion dollars of economic activity; this is only a little over half the combined revenues of the Top 200's $7.1 trillion.
5. The Top 200 have been net job destroyers in recent years. Their combined global employment is only 18.8 million, which is less than a third of 1 percent of the world's people. The world has just over 5.6 billion people. Of these, around 2.6 billion are in the workforce. Hence, the Top 200 employ less than three-fourths of 1 percent of the world's workers. Of the world's top five employers, four are U.S. (General Motors, Wal-Mart, PepsiCo, and Ford), and one is German (Siemens). If one also includes the public sector in these calculations, the U.S. Postal Service is the world's biggest employer, at 870,160, roughly 160,000 more workers than GM's 709,000 workers.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm1296.08.html
1. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries. Wal-Mart--the number 12 corporation--is bigger than 161 countries, including Israel, Poland and Greece. Mitsubishi is larger than the fourth most populous nation on earth: Indonesia. General Motors is bigger than Denmark. Ford is bigger than South Africa. Toyota is bigger than Norway.
These are numbers from ten years ago. Do you think it's changed much?
TWO HUNDRED GIANT CORPORATIONS, most of them larger than many national economies, have sales that exceed a quarter of the world's economic activity. Philip Morris is larger than New Zealand, and it operates in 170 countries. Instead of creating an integrated global village, these firms are weaving webs of production, consumption and finance that bring economic benefits to, at most, a third of the world's people. Two-thirds of the world (the bottom 20 percent of the rich countries and the bottom 80 percent of the poor countries) are either left out, marginalized or hurt by these webs of activity.
Here are five snapshots of the extent of global corporate concentration:
2.The combined sales of the world's Top 200 corporations are far greater than a quarter of the world's economic activity. The Top 200's share of global economic activity has been growing rapidly over the past decade. In 1982, the Top 200 firms had sales that were the equivalent of 24.2 percent of the world's gross domestic product (GDP). Today, that figure has grown to 28.3 percent of world GDP.
3.The Top 200 corporations' combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 9; that is they surpass the combined economies of 182 countries. At latest count, the world has 191 countries. If you subtract the GDP of the big nine economies -- the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada and China -- the combined GDP's of the other 182 countries is $6.9 trillion. The combined sales of the Top 200 corporations is $7.1 trillion.
4.The Top 200 have almost twice the economic clout of the poorest four-fifths of humanity. The world's economic income and wealth remain highly concentrated among the rich. Indeed, according to the United Nations, some 85 percent of the world's GDP is controlled by the richest fifth of humanity; only 15 percent is controlled by the poorest four-fifths. Hence, the poorer 4.5 billion people in the world account for only $3.9 trillion dollars of economic activity; this is only a little over half the combined revenues of the Top 200's $7.1 trillion.
5. The Top 200 have been net job destroyers in recent years. Their combined global employment is only 18.8 million, which is less than a third of 1 percent of the world's people. The world has just over 5.6 billion people. Of these, around 2.6 billion are in the workforce. Hence, the Top 200 employ less than three-fourths of 1 percent of the world's workers. Of the world's top five employers, four are U.S. (General Motors, Wal-Mart, PepsiCo, and Ford), and one is German (Siemens). If one also includes the public sector in these calculations, the U.S. Postal Service is the world's biggest employer, at 870,160, roughly 160,000 more workers than GM's 709,000 workers.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm1296.08.html
1. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries. Wal-Mart--the number 12 corporation--is bigger than 161 countries, including Israel, Poland and Greece. Mitsubishi is larger than the fourth most populous nation on earth: Indonesia. General Motors is bigger than Denmark. Ford is bigger than South Africa. Toyota is bigger than Norway.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)