SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (55294)2/27/2007 4:39:24 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
If Mitt Romney's ancestors' marital practices are fair game, why are those of the Democratic front-runner herself "taboo"?

Best of the Web Today
BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, February 26, 2007

Poly Wanna Cracker

The Associated Press discovers a scandal . . . well, not exactly a scandal, but more of a . . . uh, we can't quite figure out what it is, so you tell us:

<<< While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Romney's great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she "used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow" over her own husband's multiple marriages. >>>

Now, this column yields to no one in our repugnance to polygamy. The Supreme Court held in 1890, "The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism," and who are we to disagree?

But Romney's church long ago renounced polygamy. He himself not only isn't a polygamist; he doesn't even practice "serial monogamy." He married his high school sweetheart, Ann, and they've been together, just the two of them and their kids, for 37 years.

If the marital lives of a presidential candidate's great- and great-great-grandparents are a legitimate topic of journalistic inquiry, what about the marital lives of presidential candidates themselves? We have in mind a particular candidate, who, without naming any names, is now the junior senator from New York and the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Nine years ago we learned that the future senator's husband, who then held a high position in the federal government, was carrying on an extramarital sexual affair with an employee who was only a few years older than the age of consent. This came to light when the husband lied under oath about it in a lawsuit in which another woman alleged that he had made unwanted sexual advances toward her. Several other women also claimed that the husband either had affairs with or forced his affections upon them. The husband was not indicted for perjury, but he was impeached, though not convicted.

The senator-to-be did not divorce her husband; indeed, in her public statements at least, she not only stood by her man but made him out to be the victim of what she called "the vast right-wing conspiracy." Now, according to the Washington Post, she wants the whole topic to be off-limits:


<<< [New York's junior senator] has a new commandment for the 2008 presidential field: Thou shalt not mention anything related to the impeachment of her husband.

With a swift response to attacks from a former supporter last week, advisers to the New York Democrat offered a glimpse of their strategy for handling one of the most awkward chapters of her biography. They declared her husband's impeachment in 1998--or, more accurately, the embarrassing personal behavior that led to it--taboo, putting her rivals on notice and all but daring other Democrats to mention the ordeal again.

"In the end, voters will decide what's off-limits, but I can't imagine that the public will reward the politics of personal destruction," senior . . . adviser Howard Wolfson said Friday, when asked whether the impeachment is fair game for [the senator's] opponents. Earlier in the week, Wolfson dismissed references to [the senator's husband's] conduct as "under the belt." >>>


The press, as usual, is respectful of taboos when they issue from the political left. Here's an example from this week's Newsweek:


<<< Last December, a Newsweek reporter tentatively broached a delicate subject with a longstanding adviser to [New York's junior senator]: was there a concern in the . . . camp that her husband might somehow embarrass her in the campaign ahead? The reaction was swift and fierce. "If that's what you want to talk about, I'm hanging up right now," said the adviser, who did not wish to be identified even entertaining such a question.

But it is the elephant in the room. [The senator's] presidential campaign can ill afford another scandal swirling around her husband, whose second term in [high federal office] was badly disrupted by the Monica Lewinsky affair. Perhaps the [senator's supporters] are understandably worried that the Republican right will try to create a scandal where there is none or dredge up old history. >>>


An example of dredging up "old history," it seems to us, would be going back three and four generations to examine the marital practices of a candidate's ancestors. In the case of the senator from New York, the questions very much involve living history.

Based on her public actions--remaining married to her husband and publicly defending him despite his infidelity--one may wonder if this is a "polyamorous" marriage (polyamory essentially consisting of polygamy without commitment). It may also be that this has devolved into essentially a marriage of convenience--that the senator believes she is better positioned to realize her political ambitions if she remains legally bound to her husband, who is very popular at least within his own party.

No doubt liberal journalists will continue to shy away from these questions, as with the Newsweek reporter who "tentatively broached a delicate subject," instead of confronting a source with a tough question, the way reporters do with Republicans. The senator's Democratic opponents may respect her "taboo" too.

But if she gets the nomination, you can expect to hear a lot more about this, just as you did about John Kerry's dodgy activities vis-à-vis Vietnam. Like Kerry, the senator from New York may find herself unprepared because she is so used to deferential treatment from the press.

opinionjournal.com

foxnews.com

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)2/27/2007 4:51:13 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
    In the movie business you see a lot of that, a kind of 
narcissistic politics in which how you appear is so much
more important than what you really are. It's as if there
were two people - the private one bossing around the
staffs while burning up more fuel than the Sultan of
Brunei and the public one wagging a finger at the rest of
us. Gore seems to have fit in well with these folks.

Gore, hypocrisy and the "politics of me"

Roger L. Simon

Al Gore must be pretty embarrassed this evening seeing the headline at the top of the Drudge Report: POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'. You almost feel sorry for the guy. He can't catch a break the day after he wins an Oscar. (Okay, it was a gift. The movie as film was tenth-rate. But he did win.)

But there's a deeper question beneath all this. Does hypocrisy count? Does it matter than Hollywood stars parade around in Priuses while keeping private planes and multiple homes that burn up who-knows-how much energy (in many cases enough to dwarf Al's)? Is it just that these people mouth off that raises our eyebrows or should they actually practice what they preach ?

Now I don't have a particularly Green Lifestyle, although I am thinking of buying a hybrid for my next car (primarily because I can't stand to stick another dollar in the Saudi gas pump) and the next time I build something I'll probably pay more attention to good window sealing (the code will probably make me do that anyway). But what's with Gore? How could he be so thoughtless and, yes, arrogant to go out there banging the drum for his film at the very time, according to public records, he increased his already sizable personal energy consumption. How embarrassing and how terrible for his cause. Maybe he doesn't really care about it at bottom - maybe it's all about him.

In the movie business you see a lot of that, a kind of narcissistic politics in which how you appear is so much more important than what you really are. It's as if there were two people - the private one bossing around the staffs while burning up more fuel than the Sultan of Brunei and the public one wagging a finger at the rest of us. Gore seems to have fit in well with these folks. In the long run, I suspect that doesn't augur well for the environment.

rogerlsimon.com

drudgereport.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)2/27/2007 10:20:44 AM
From: ManyMoose  Respond to of 90947
 
I'm not surprised to read that Al Gore is a hypocrite. What surprises me is not his gluttony but George Bush's modest consumption at his Crawford Ranch.



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)2/27/2007 2:29:32 PM
From: Jim S  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 90947
 
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 was thinking about buying some "carbon offsets." Where are they sold, and how much do they cost? I'd prefer to get them on sale, though.



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)2/28/2007 11:23:27 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
    I think that you have to go back to the forged 60 Minutes 
documents to find another example of a story that broke so
quickly and so thoroughly, but was so viciously denied–
against all evidence–by partisans who refused to believe
the facts.
    And the facts are this. Four and a half years ago Al Gore 
bought a large home and made it larger, but did very
little to reduce his own energy consumption. Instead, he
spent the same time telling you how to reduce yours.
Bob Krumm

Read it all here
bobkrumm.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)3/1/2007 2:48:09 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
GORE THE GUZZLER

NEW YORK POST
Editorial
March 1, 2007

How big is Al Gore's carbon footprint?

Pretty hefty.

Gore grabbed an Oscar Sunday night for his global-warming horror flick, "An Inconvenient Truth" - and took the opportunity to lecture America about its duty to Go Green and stay there.

Now a Tennessee think tank has revealed an inconvenient truth of its own - about what Gore actually practices, as opposed to what he endlessly preaches.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, using public records, calculated the Gores' energy use for the past two years at their new 20-room, 10,000-square-foot home in suburban Nashville.

In all, the main house and the pool house used an average 18,414 kilowatt-hours (KWH) of power a month last year; that's 14 percent more the 16,200 monthly KWH they devoured in 2005.

Thus does the carbon footprint - the amount of greenhouse gas generated to keep Gore in kilowatts - grow.

But just how much juice is that?

Well, average national household use is 10,656 KWH. For an entire year, that is.

Al and Tipper beat that monthly.

For perspective, the average residential customer in New York City skimped by on just 300 KWH a month, or 3,600 a year - less than 2 percent of Gore's use.

OK, so that's mostly for apartments.

Up in Westchester, where most customers own comfortably large homes, the average monthly usage is 450 KWH, or 5,400 KWH a year - still under 3 percent of what the Gores consume.

As for cost, the average New York City residential energy bill last month was $62.88 before taxes, according to Con Edison; in Westchester, it was $81.80.

What about the Gores?

They paid $1,359 a month for electricity - or about $16,000 per year.

No doubt one could raise a family on that in Tennessee - though not in a home quite as large as Gore's.

And just how big is that palace, comparatively speaking?

Take your typical 800-square-foot, one-bedroom Manhattan pad: You could fit 121/2 of them inside the Gores' abode.

A spokeswoman for Gore didn't dispute the figures, but insisted the former Second Family purchases enough energy from renewable sources to offset their sizable carbon footprint.

No doubt.

But that's just another way of saying that the rich truly are different.

Gore, a Kyoto Protocol advocate, has enough socked away so he won't miss a meal should that treaty ever be adopted - and wreck the U.S. economy.

It was the fear of such damage, recall, that led the U.S. Senate - Veep Al Gore presiding - to reject Kyoto 95-0.

What a hypocrite he is.

And he's not alone.

As The Los Angeles Times reported this week, two of California's greenest pols - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Dianne Feinstein - continue to flit around on their private Gulfstream jets.

A single cross-country flight on such an aircraft emits up to 90,000 pounds of carbon dioxide - nearly double the amount the average American produces from all activities in an entire year.

Meanwhile, Laurie David, producer of that Gore documentary, also uses private Gulfstreams - though she rebukes those driving SUVs. (She now says she's cutting back on her private jet usage - but gradually, like a smoker trying to quit.)

And so it goes.

Gore always was tiresome.

Obviously nothing has changed.

nypost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)3/6/2007 11:15:13 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Conspicuous Consumption

Cox & Forkum



coxandforkum.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)3/7/2007 12:18:06 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
    [A] religion should be understood by both its adherents 
and others for what it is -- a religion. The trouble with
global warming believers is that probably most of them
delude themselves into thinking they are practicing
science -- not religion.

Al Gore's Remission of Sin

By Tony Blankley
Townhall.com Columnist
Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Some neuro-scientists see evidence that man is genetically hard-wired to be disposed to religious conviction. If this is so, it might explain why amongst even the French -- the most secular culture on Earth -- only 25 percent claim to be atheists, and a full 60 percent believe in a spiritual component to life. It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer toward a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.

This oft-observed aspect to environmentalism in general, and global warmingism in particular, has been shrewdly analyzed in a new book, "The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction," by former University College London professor Dr. David Orrell. Among other things, Dr. Orrell focuses on the similarity between global warming advocates' powerful predictive urge and the inherent prophetic nature of the religious instinct.

While I suspect that most global warming alarmists would be offended if they were called pagan neo-animists, in fact, some leading religious scholars have written cogently on the point. For example, Graham Harvey, professor of religious studies at King Alfred's College, England, has written two approving books on the topic: "Contemporary Paganism: Listening People, Speaking Earth," (New York University Press) and "Animism: Respecting the Living World." (Columbia University Press).

As Professor Graham writes: "This new use of the term animism applies to the religious worldviews and lifeways of communities and cultures for which it is important to inculcate and enhance appropriate ways to live respectfully within the wider community of [non-human animate and inanimate] persons."

Moreover, there has been a conscious awareness that religious fervor would be needed to energize the environmental movement. As Joseph Brean points out in his recent National Post review of Dr. Orrell's book:

<<< "Forty years ago, shortly after Rachel Carson launched modern environmentalism a Princeton history professor named Lynn White wrote a seminal essay called the Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises: 'By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.' It was a prescient claim. In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton closed the circle, calling modern environmentalism 'the religion of choice for urban atheists a perfect 21st Century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths." >>>

Now, there is nothing wrong, and a lot right, with the human instinct to try to understand man within a larger transcendental context. The arrogant and monstrously dilated individual human ego is the direct cause of much of mankind's suffering throughout our benighted existence.

And while I have my own religious thoughts, I will not disdain any man's search for the transcendent. But a religion should be understood by both its adherents and others for what it is -- a religion. The trouble with global warming believers is that probably most of them delude themselves into thinking they are practicing science -- not religion.

And yet, the signs of religiousness are readily to be seen. Al Gore and his Hollywood coterie have almost comically manifested one aspect of their new religion in the last few weeks -- the sense of sin and the search for remission of such sin.

At the Academy Awards last month, their spokesman proudly announced that this year's show was "the first green Oscars." These vast consumers of energy -- in their 30,000-sqare-foot houses, their Gulfstream jets and even in their high-energy consumption film production process -- claimed green remission of sin by virtue of driving the last hundred yards to the Kodak Theatre in Priuses and by buying carbon credits.

Likewise, when Al Gore was revealed to be using high quantities of energy to heat and cool his large home, he claimed it was OK because he had purchased carbon offset credits. Substantively, these offsets are of dubious environmental value (see Daily Telegraph article: "Is Carbon Offsetting a Con"; BBC's "U.K. to Tackle Bogus Carbon Schemes"; Wall St. Journal's "The Political and Business Self-interest Behind Carbon Limits.")

But as, what the Catholic Church calls "indulgentia a culpa et a poena" (release from guilt and from punishment), paying carbon offset fees makes perfect religious sense. The Christian sinner pays the church for "a remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the church in the exercise of the powers of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive." (Catholic Encyclopedia)

In the animistic church, any using or changing of the physical world (such as burning carbon) is a sin against the sacred, holistic, living world (the Gaia hypothesis). But as everyone uses energy (just as every Christian sins), the neo-animist church, too, must provide for a remission of sin (and also, a handy source of profit for the carbon-offset company owners -- such as Al Gore who, according to news reports, pays his indulgences to Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chairman.)

In the neo-animist church of global warming -- as in all religions -- the truth is acquired by faith -- not science. And as in all religions, the faithful should be on guard for charlatans.


Tony Blankley served as press secretary to then Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. He is the author of The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? .

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)3/18/2007 11:50:42 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Hat tip to LindyBill:

<<< Gore has become a real "Tar Baby." The "Tennessean" Front Page today. >>>

    "an environmental group tracking mining operations ranked 
this particular mine among the "Dirtiest/Worst Facilities" in
the U.S. in 2002."

Tenn. mine enriched Gore, scarred land

No major pollution violations, but threat remains

By BILL THEOBALD
Tennessean Washington Bureau

CARTHAGE, Tenn. - Al Gore has profited from zinc mining that has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances near his farmstead, but there is no evidence the mine has caused serious damage to the environment in the area or threatened the health of his neighbors.

Two massive white mountains of leftover rock waste are evidence of three decades of mining that earned Gore more than $500,000 in royalty payments for the mineral rights to his property.

New owners plan to start mining again later this year, after nearly four years of inactivity. In addition to bringing 250 much-needed jobs to rural Middle Tennessee, mine owners will resume paying royalties to some residents who, like Gore, own land adjacent to the mine and lease access to the zinc under their property.

Gore has yet to be approached by the new owner, Strategic Resource Acquisition, said his spokeswoman Kalee Kreider, and he and wife, Tipper, have not decided whether they will renew their lease. It was terminated when the mine closed in 2003.

Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national environmental group, to make sure the operation doesn't damage the environment.

"We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices," Gore wrote.

Victor Wyprysky, the company's president and chief executive officer, did not respond to requests for comment on the letter.

The letter was sent the week after The Tennessean's Washington bureau posed questions to the former vice president about his involvement with the mine.

Previous mine owners released toxic substances into waterways above the allowable levels several times in the eight years before the mine closed.

But state regulators consider those permit violations minor, and monitoring reports provide a clean bill of health for the surface water in the area. Community leaders and health officials recall no health problems ever associated with the mining.

But now that the mine is reopening and Gore's status as an environmentalist has grown, some of Gore's neighbors see a conflict between the mining and his moral call for environmental activism.

"Mining is not exactly synonymous with being green, is it?" said John Mullins, who lives in nearby Cookeville. A conservative, Mullins welcomes the resumption of mining for the benefits it will bring the community. But he says Gore's view that global warming is a certainty is arrogant and that by being connected to mining, Gore is not "walking the walk."

At the same time, the Caney Fork Watershed Association, which works to conserve and improve the waterways near the mine, has heard no concerns from its members about the mine's reopening.

"The operation has a record of vigilance in not operating to harm the environment, and we certainly hope that the renewed operation will maintain this record," John Harwood, with the association, said in a written response to questions. "It is important that this waste material … be permanently secured from causing environmental contamination."

And Earthworks president and chief executive Stephen D'Esposito said Gore's involvement with mining doesn't bother him "in any way, shape or form."

"We are going to have mining. The question is doing it in the right place and the right way," said D'Esposito, who has not studied the Carthage mines.


Gore's mining history

Al Gore Jr.'s involvement in mining can be traced to Sept. 22, 1973.

Former U.S. Sen. Albert Gore Sr. bought about 88 acres along the Caney Fork River from Occidental Minerals, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, for $160,000. Included in the deal was the subsurface area. The rights to the minerals below ground were then leased back to Occidental.

On the same day, Gore Sr. sold the land and subsurface area to his 25-year-old son and daughter-in-law for $140,000. The mineral lease to Occidental was put in their names.

Kreider said the terms of the 30-year agreement provided the Gores "no legal recourse" even if they had wanted to cancel it, Kreider said.

The Gores, she said, would not comment on whether they tried to pursue legal action to void the lease. "There is a certain zone of privacy once people go into private life."

Gore received $20,000 a year for 27 years and $10,000 a year for three years, making a total of $570,000 in lease payments. Kreider said the Gores never considered selling the land.

She said the lease has to be viewed in a "1973 context, not a 2007 context."

"There was a different environmental sensibility about all sorts of things," she said.


Emission from the mine

The mine is a complex of several interconnected sites known as the Gordonsville Mine and Mill, the Cumberland Mine and the Elmwood Mine, which is the closest to Gore's property. In addition, previous mine owners operated a refining plant in Clarksville.

Through the years, mining operations expanded as the facilities went through several ownership and name changes. Horizontal shafts, called drifts, extend under the Gore property, Kreider said, although the Gores don't know their number and location.

By 1983, the Elmwood-Gordonsville complex was the largest zinc-producing mine in the country and Tennessee the largest zinc-producing state. The Elmwood-Gordonsville mine kept the title every year until 1990, except for 1984.

Zinc is used primarily to protect steel from corrosion. Other metals released during the mining process - such as lead, mercury and copper - are necessary to a modern economy. But human exposure to high levels of these metals can cause health problems.

The Environmental Protection Agency began reporting toxic releases from metal mining operations for the first time in 1998. The mining industry objected to being included in the reports because of the sheer size of the emission numbers and the fact that much of what is reported is the naturally occurring substance - in this case zinc - that is being mined.

In the five-year period from 1998 to 2003, before the mines were shuttered, 16.6 million pounds of toxic substances were released into the air, water and land at the Gordonsville site, according to the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory data, and 2.6 million pounds were released at the Cumberland site. Most of that was the zinc pulled from ground during mining.

In its last year of full operation in 2002, the Gordonsville-Cumberland mines ranked 22nd among all metal mining operations in the U.S., with about 4.1 million pounds of toxic releases. The top releasing mine, Red Dog Mine in Alaska, emitted about 482 million pounds that year. In 2002, Smith County ranked 39th out of more than 3,000 U.S. counties for lead compound releases and 21st for cadmium releases, according to tallies by Scorecard, a Web site run by environmentalists that compiles federal data.

Even Gore noted in his letter that, according to Scorecard, "pollution releases from the mine in 2002 placed it among the 'dirtiest/worst facilities' in the U.S."

How much was released in the previous quarter century when the mines were in their heyday is unknown.

The Clarksville processing plant emitted more than 26 million pounds of pollutants in 2004, ranking Montgomery County 21st among all U.S. counties for the amount of toxic releases discharged into the environment.


Water discharge violations

While all the sites have systems in place to protect nearby rivers and streams, the state discharge permit records for the Carthage area mines show several examples in recent years of releases of toxic substances into waterways above the allowable levels set under the federal Clean Water Act. The majority of samples taken found acceptable levels of the various substances being tested.

Violations cited were:

• Gordonsville Mine and Mill. Sampling at one site where the mine discharges into a tributary of the Caney Fork River found 23 violations of the limit on zinc levels out of 30 samples taken between October 1995 and August 2000, according to permit documents. Nineteen of those readings above permit limits occurred between December 1995 and March 1997 and caused the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to issue three notices of violation to Savage Zinc Inc., the mine owner then.

Because the company worked to correct the problem, state officials said the department did not take tougher action such as a fine. The other four violations, between January 1998 and August 2000, were considered minor, officials said. Two other notices of violation were issued in 1997 for zinc limit violations at a nearby discharge point.

Two other zinc violations were found in samples in 2003; one for high levels of solids that year and in 2004; and one for copper in a 2003 sample.

• Elmwood Mine. State inspectors found a permit violation in January 2000 that was caused when a valve failure on a pipe carrying lime slurry from the Gordonsville mine caused it to bypass a treatment structure and empty into a tributary of the Caney Fork. Higher than permitted zinc levels were found in one sample each in 2000 and 2001.

• Cumberland Mine. Violations of the solids levels were found twice in 2002, and one sample that year contained excessive zinc.

"We think those violations (are) considered minor," said Paul Schmierbach, environmental program manager for the state's Division of Water Pollution Control.

The most recent permit for the Clarksville plant includes no permit violations. But very high zinc levels were found in many samples taken from 2001 to 2005 at two sites where storm water flowed into a tributary of the Cumberland River. The Clarksville permit did not set limits for storm water runoff so those were not counted as violations.

Water quality OK, for now

Test samples taken of the surface water in the Caney Fork and Cumberland rivers near the mine sites in recent years show no readings of dangerous substances above the legal limits.

"I don't see anything here that indicates a water quality issue," said Greg Denton, manager of the planning and standards section in the Division of Water Pollution Control, after reviewing testing data compiled by The Tennessean's Washington bureau.

And state and county health officials, along with community leaders, can recall no reports of unusual health problems in the area.

At the same time, the state counts the two water systems in Smith County that draw from the Caney Fork and Cumberland downstream from the mines as highly susceptible for contamination, according to the Tennessee Source Water Assessment Report issued in August 2003, the most recent report done.

That is in part because of the mines and other facilities that discharge into the rivers, according to the report. The report scored nearly half of the state's 457 community water sources as having "high susceptibility" for contamination.

In addition, state environmental officials said in a 2006 report that Tennessee needs a more accurate picture of the health of its underground water supply.

According to the report, the state:

• Has not done a systematic statewide study of its aquifers.

• Requires that public water systems sample only the treated water they provide to customers, not raw ground water samples.

• Does not require routine sampling of private wells and springs.

Smith Utility District, one of the two water treatment plants in the area, draws from the Caney Fork, which Gore used as a backdrop in his Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The other, Carthage Water System, takes its water from the Cumberland.

Only a few violations of safe drinking water regulations have been found in recent years during tests at the Smith, Carthage and other water systems in the area. Most are monitoring violations, and the only health-related ones are for high levels of the chemicals used to disinfect the water.

Marcus Kemp, plant and distribution superintendent for the Smith Utility District plant, said he never had problems with discharges from the mines during his 28 years with the district, nor has Don Taylor, who runs the Carthage water plant.

Still, Kemp is concerned about what will happen when the new owners pump out the water that has filled the mine since it was shut down.

"That is going to be a different issue," Kemp said of the restart of mining. "Water went into all the cracks and crevices."

Mining set to restart

Community leaders see no problem with Gore, or the hundreds of other landowners in the area, reaping the benefits of owning property rich in zinc. In 2002, a previous mine owner held 355 leases in the area, totaling 16,339 acres, or more than 25.5 square miles.

"I don't think he would want to stand in the way of economic development of a community," said Michael Nesbitt, mayor of Smith County, where the mines are located.

Nesbitt and others are excited about the jobs the mine will create for some of the county's nearly 19,000 people whose per capita personal income was below the state's in 2003, the most recent county data available.

Strategic Resource Acquisition, the Canadian company that will operate under the name Mid-Tennessee Zinc, estimates it will take a year to reactivate the mines. Mining itself should begin in the third quarter of this year, said Wyprysky, the CEO. The mill should begin putting out ore ready for shipping to refining plants in the first quarter of 2008.

In an interview prior to Gore's letter being sent, Wyprysky declined a request for a tour of the mining sites and declined to comment on their connection to Gore. He said the company was still in the process of negotiating lease agreements with the surrounding property owners.

The Gores won't speculate on whether they will refuse to renew their lease if the new owners don't follow their request to work with the environmental group, Kreider said. They do plan, she said, to encourage their neighbors to join their effort.

Also to be decided is what to do about the leases on two parcels owned by Albert Gore Sr., which Gore eventually will inherit when his parents' estates are settled.

The company said the mine already has produced 2.6 billion pounds of zinc metal, and still contains 26 million tons of zinc material containing 3.25 percent zinc.

That means that mining there could continue for years, creating an ongoing environmental threat to Gore and his neighbors in the rolling hills of Middle Tennessee.

"The real protection," said Harwood of the Caney Fork Watershed Association, "lies in the good faith and diligence of the mine operators, and of the state regulators."

Contact Bill Theobald at wtheobal@gns.gannett.com.

tennessean.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)3/19/2007 3:21:52 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Whose Ox Is Gored?

The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Monday, March 19, 2007

The media are finally catching up with Al Gore. Criticism of his anti-global-warming franchise and his personal environmental record has gone beyond ankle-biting bloggers. It's now coming from the New York Times and the Nashville Tennessean, his hometown paper that put his birth, as a senator's son, on its front page back in 1948, and where a young Al Gore Jr. worked for five years as a journalist.

Last Tuesday, the Times reported that several eminent scientists "argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points [on global warming] are exaggerated and erroneous." The Tenessean reported yesterday that Mr. Gore received $570,000 in royalties from the owners of zinc mines who held mineral leases on his farm. The mines, which closed in 2003 but are scheduled to reopen under a new operator later this year, "emitted thousands of pounds of toxic substances and several times, the water discharged from the mines into nearby rivers had levels of toxins above what was legal."

All of this comes in the wake of the enormous publicity Mr. Gore received after his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar. The film features Mr. Gore reprising his famous sighing and lamenting how the average American's energy use is greedily off the charts. At the film's end viewers are asked, "Are you ready to change the way you live?"

The Nashville-based Tennessee Center for Policy Research was skeptical that Mr. Gore had been "walking the walk" on the environment. It obtained public records showing that for years Mr. Gore has burned through more electricity at his Nashville home each month than the average American family uses in a year--and his consumption was increasing. The heated Gore pool house alone ran up more than $500 in natural-gas bills every month.

Mr. Gore's office responded by claiming that the Gores "purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero." But CNSNews.com reports that Mr. Gore doesn't purchase carbon offsets with his own resources, and that they are meaningless in terms of global warming.

The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."

The New York Times last week interviewed many scientists who say they are alarmed "at what they call [Mr. Gore's] alarmism on global warming." In a front-page piece in its science section, the Times headline read "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype."

The Times quoted Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, as telling hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America that "I don't want to pick on Al Gore. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data." Mr. Easterbrook made clear he has never been paid by any energy corporations and isn't a Republican.

Even James Hansen, a scientist who began issuing warning cries about global warming in the 1980s and is a top adviser to Mr. Gore, concedes that his work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws." Other flaws are more serious, such as Mr. Gore's depiction of sea level rises of up to 20 feet, which would cause Florida and New York City to sink below the surface.

Sober scientists privately say such claims are exaggerated. They point to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that released its fourth report on global warming last month. While it found humans were the main cause of recent global warming, the report also indicated it was a very slow-moving process. On sea levels, the U.N. panel reported its s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. The new high-end best estimate is less than half the previous prediction, which was still far below Mr. Gore's 20 feet. Similarly, the new report shows that the panel's 2001 report overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

In an email message to the Times, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. But it's increasingly clear that far from the "consensus" on global warming we are told exists, scientists are having a broad and rich debate on many aspects of it. Nearly two decades after Mr. Gore first claimed that "we face an ecological crisis without any precedent in historic times," we don't know if that is really true.

Then there is the Gore zinc mine.
Mr. Gore has personally earned $570,000 in zinc royalties from a mine his father bought in 1973 from Armand Hammer, the business executive famous for his close friendship with the Soviet Union and for pleading guilty to making illegal campaign contributions during Watergate. One the same day Al Gore Sr. bought the 88-acre parcel from Hammer for $160,000, he sold the land and subsurface mining rights to his then 25-year-old son for $140,000. The mineral rights were then leased back to Hammer's Occidental Petroleum and the royalty payments put in the names of Al Gore Jr. and his wife, Tipper.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider claims the terms of the 30-year Occidental lease agreement gave the Gores "no legal recourse" to get out of it. She said the Gores never thought about selling the land and would not comment on whether they ever tried to void the lease. "There is a certain zone of privacy once people go into private life," Ms. Kreidler said. She said critics of the arrangement should realize it should be viewed in a "1973 context, not a 2007 context. . . . There was a different environmental sensibility about all sorts of things."

But what about a 1992 context? That is the year Mr. Gore published "Earth in the Balance," in which he wrote:

    "The lakes and rivers sustain us; they flow through the 
veins of the earth and into our own. But we must take care
to let them flow back out as pure as they came, not poison
and waste them without thought for the future."
Mr. Gore wrote that at a time when he would be collecting zinc royalties for another 11 years.

The mines had a generally good environmental record, but they wouldn't pass muster either with the standard Mr. Gore set in "Earth in the Balance" or with most of his environmentalist friends. In May 2000 the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a "Notice of Violation" notifying the Pasminco mine its zinc levels in a nearby river exceeded standards established by the state and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. In 1996 the mine twice failed biomonitoring tests designed to protect water quality in the river for fish and wildlife. "The discharge of industrial wastewater from Outfall #001 [the Caney Fork effluent] contains toxic metals (copper and zinc)," the analysis stated. "The combined effect of these pollutants may be detrimental to fish and aquatic life."

The Gore mines were no small operations. In 2002, the year before they shut down, they ranked 22nd among all metal-mining operations in the U.S., with total toxic releases of 4.1 million pounds. A new mine operator, Strategic Resource Acquisition, is planning to reopen the mines later this year. The Tennessean reports that just last week, Mr. Gore wrote SRA asking it to work with a national environmental group as it makes its plans. He noted that under the previous operator, the mines had, according to the environmental website Scorecard, "pollution releases from the mine in 2002 [that] placed it among the 'dirtiest/worst facilities' in the U.S." Mr. Gore requested that SRA "engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices." The Tennessean dryly notes that Mr. Gore wrote the letter the week after the paper posed a series of questions to him about his involvement with the zinc mines.

Columnist Steven Milloy recalls talking with Mr. Gore in 2006 about the 1997 Kyoto Protocol he helped negotiate as vice president. "Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it? . . . Hell no!" said Mr. Gore, according to Mr. Milloy. The former vice president then explained that the real purpose of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on environmental issues. Mr. Gore clearly believes that the world hasn't acted with enough vigor in the decade since Kyoto, which may explain his growing use of the global-warming hype that concerns many mainstream scientists.

Mr. Gore has called the campaign to combat global warming a "moral imperative." But Mr. Gore faces another imperative: to square his sales pitches with the facts and his personal lifestyle to more align with what he advocates that others practice. "Are you ready to change the way you live?" asks Mr. Gore's film. It's time people ask Mr. Gore "Are you ready to change the way you live, as well as the way you lecture the rest of us?"

opinionjournal.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55294)3/19/2007 3:45:19 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
The Left-Wing Echo Chamber

By Robert Bluey
Townhall.com Columnist
Sunday, March 18, 2007

Death threats. Harassing phone calls. Threatening e-mails. Such was a day in the life of Drew Johnson a few weeks ago.

His crime? Johnson is president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a free-market think tank that broke one of the juiciest stories of 2007. A day after the Academy Awards, on Feb. 26, Johnson’s organization reported details of Al Gore’s enormous utility bill. The former vice president had consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in a single year -- more than 20 times the national average.

The story skyrocketed to the top headline on the Drudge Report, sending tens of thousands of visitors to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research’s Web site. With Gore facing charges of hypocrisy just a day after winning an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth," the news traveled fast.

Unfortunately for Johnson, it meant enduring days of attacks from liberals -- even though the facts of the story came directly from public records.

Last week he visited Washington, D.C., to share his story. Johnson told a group of conservative bloggers at The Heritage Foundation that he heard from hundreds of angry callers, many of whom used profane language. The research center’s vice president, whose phone number was listed on the Web page, eventually had to change her number when the attacks became so persistent and threatening.

The phone blitz was only one avenue liberals used to intimidate. Johnson said his organization received thousands of e-mails, the vast majority of them negative and hate-filled.

Shortly after the story made headlines, popular liberal blogs Daily Kos and Huffington Post, laid out their plan of attack.
A blogger called NeuvoLiberal wrote on Daily Kos, "please post any specific (action oriented) ideas you have for fighting back…. We'd like to target every person out there that is spinning in various rightwing and other outlet for this kind of smear job (the damage is done before you wake and smell the coffee)."

Over at Huffington Post, bloggers Dave Johnson and James Boyce issued another call to action: "Al Gore is a hero. Even heroes need help - join us, add to the comments, let's find out everything we can about these guys and stop them in their tracks. Now."

Their pleas were answered. Liberal blog Think Progress led the way with 655 comments on a post about the Gore story. Daily Kos was close behind with 481 comments. And 125 comments are attached to the Johnson-Boyce call-to-action post.

All this added up to one giant headache for Drew Johnson, who didn’t know where to turn to respond to the attacks being lodged at him personally, his employees and the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. While the initial Gore story received favorable coverage from conservative bloggers, these same people were silent when liberals began to distort the record.

One of the most outrageous charges, Johnson said, had to do with his background. The liberal "watchdog" Media Matters dug into Johnson’s past, noting that he had been a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. Since ExxonMobil has contributed to AEI, that bit of information was enough for Media Matters to assert that Johnson was bought and paid for by ExxonMobil. Immediately, the liberal echo chamber began to hype the allegation, though Johnson swiftly denied it. Johnson had merely interned at AEI. Neither he nor the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has ever received money from ExxonMobil. But that didn’t stop MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann from playing up the mythical connection.

Instead of backing down and retreating, the episode has inspired Johnson. His three days of meetings in the nation’s capital introduced him to a wider network of contacts and left him eager to help build a network of bloggers who could defend conservatives under attack.

He has also hired an investigative reporter to produce more stories similar to the one about Gore -- an unorthodox tactic for a think tank. But Johnson said sometimes that’s what it takes to discover the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be for him personally.


Robert B. Bluey is director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation and maintains a blog at RobertBluey.com

townhall.com