One Nice Thing To Say About The Goracle
February 25, 2007 at 9:27 am
I know it’s tough to say anything more about Al Gore that hasn’t already been said about cardboard, but consider this additional fact.
The Washington Post this morning reports on Gore’s travels around the world to promote “An Inconvenient Truth,” up for best documentary at tonight’s Academy Awards. Gore, or, as the Post says he’s called, the Goracle, “worked the premieres in Edinburgh, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm, Sydney, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, Zurich, Brussels, Berlin and Tokyo.”
Now whether or not you agree with the thrust of Gore’s global warming message, there’s some charm in internationally crusading for a cause you believe in.
Contrast Gore’s nobility with Bill Clinton. We learned in Friday’s Post story about Clinton’s multi-million dollar speaking gigs that, “Two-thirds of the former president’s speaking money has come from foreign sources.”
Wonder if, instead of Gore, it were Clinton on stage accepting an Oscar tonight, he’d charge a speaking fee.
Jack is Back said,
February 25, 2007 @ 10:24 am
What are the odds that as Al Gore is accepting an award for a movie about global warming that a “once in a lifetime” blizzard strikes just outside the Kodak theatre in L.A.?
Percy Dovetonsils said,
February 25, 2007 @ 10:53 am
“Gore, or, as the Post says he’s called, the Goracle, ‘worked the premieres in Edinburgh, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm, Sydney, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, Zurich, Brussels, Berlin and Tokyo.’”
Boy, that’s a lot of jet travel, and here I thought jet travel was one of the most harmful things one could do in terms of global warming.
Well, I’m sure that once the more draconian carbon tax schemes come to fruition, our betters like Al Gore will still be able to jet across the globe to lecture us benighted (and much poorer) peons.
syn said,
February 25, 2007 @ 10:54 am
If the Malibu collective celebrity empire really believed Gorical’s Warming one would think they would be putting up their 10 million $$$ malibu mansions with ocenan view on the market and the head for the hills.
Hollywood: America’s Bejewelled Bottomfeeders.
It is no wonder they have nominated Al Gore.
Ric Locke said,
February 25, 2007 @ 11:00 am
Talking about “the Goracle” is wrong.
The correct model is Bonny Prince Al, by Divine Law and the Justice of Mankind the Only True Heir of Bill the God-King, rightful Sovereign of America and First Man of the Western World.
The hincty bastards had their chance to acknowledge him, but turned away from the True Path. When he comes into his rightful Estate they’ll rue the day.
Regards,
Ric
PoliticalCritic said,
February 25, 2007 @ 11:16 am
The odd part is that Gore would probably win the presidency now if he decided to run. The climate has changed so much in 7+ years, he could achieve what he once fought so hard for. Of course, now that he hangs with Cameron Diaz, Ludicris, and other Hollywood stars, why bother?
David said,
February 25, 2007 @ 11:41 am
As Gore has said many times, he offsets all his carbon expenditures. He’s carbon neutral, more than can be said for most of you.
Jim,MtnViewCA,USA said,
February 25, 2007 @ 11:55 am
“Gore…offsets all his carbon expenditures.”
I think they called this “selling indulgences” back in the Middle Ages. Not sure how paying a bribe so you can pollute the planet guilt-free actually, you know, helps the environment.
Jason said,
February 25, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Ah yes David, using one fraudulent scheme to cover up another fraudulent scheme, of course that makes it alright.
Of course if you were serious, you’d simply say that the Goracle pays the necessary protection money to the environmentalists. Further if you were really serious, you’d be going after animals like the beaver for being so harmful to the environment in terms of “carbon”.
The enviro-religion is a joke-cult and Gore is their Jim Jones.
Natalie said,
February 25, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Can someone provide some actual details about how a guy who spends half of his time travelling in jets and/or limos and owns several homes and vehicles manages to “offset” his carbon expenditures thereby becoming carbon neutral?
Really, I need some detail here. Just saying so is not enough.
I heat and cool one home (3500 sq ft), own two cars (yes, one is a Yukon XL!) and travel by jet rarely.
Do I beat Al Gore in the neutrality sweepstakes or not?
And, if not, where do I go to purchase my indulgences….er….I mean offsets?
Mistercalm said,
February 25, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
David,
“As Gore has said many times, he offsets all his carbon expenditures. He’s carbon neutral, more than can be said for most of you.”
You have got to be freakin’ kidding! That’s like saying an industrial polluter can pour waste into one river as long as he spends money to clean up another river! The Gore-freak is simply trying to push the idea that A) only some people are allowed to flaunt environmentalism (based on bogus, politically funded ’science’) and B) more taxes for EVERYBODY to cover a non-existent problem. I’ll guarantee if power-hungry fools like Gore and his ilk can fool the people into going along with this out of fear only a small amount of the tax revenue collected will go toward some token research. The rest will get flushed down the toilet along with the Social Security funds the Dems voted to allow themselves to strip during the 60’s. Congress will go along with passing “carbon nuetral” taxing for the simple reason that IT’S TAXING! That’s what they do… that’s more money for them to spend. Al Gore is a freaking liar and a dirtball!
John F. said,
February 25, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Greed may not be good, but it is overly maligned. Would you rather our washed-up politicians milk the world for cash or lobby aggressively for beatification? I’m hoping Gore’s cushy corporate board memberships help keep him tied up in his current theological pursuits and out of politics.J
Mistercalm said,
February 25, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
John has a very good point. I’m just afraid he’s going to pull an “Arnold”: solidify his name recognition; make his relevancy “current”, then try to re-enter politics (the show business for ugly people). You know, if Hillary, or Al, or any other lame-brained Socialist politico, or their foolish idolizers (Charleze Theron, e.g.) really felt like Cuba was the epitome of government… I’m sure Fidel would entertain and support their emigration from America to his island paradise. Since none of them seem to be crowding the airport turnstiles to take the reverse refugee trail to Havana, they are either foolish idealists that think they could create and run a Socialist government here, ruining America, or they are liars. Neither possibility is attractive.
Jon S. said,
February 25, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
First I would like to address the premise of this post. Some how you missed the opening paragraph of the article:
“He averaged almost a speech a day — 352 for the year — but only about 20 percent were for personal income. The others were given for no fee or for donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit group he founded to pursue causes such as the fight against AIDS.”
Lets compare this with what you said:
“Contrast Gore’s nobility with Bill Clinton.”
hmmmmmm, here are some more Headlines and links:
Ex-presidents to lead tsunami charity drive
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6780798/
Philanthropy Today: Bulk of Bill Clinton’s Speech Fees Go to Charity
philanthropy.com/news/article/1962/bulk-of-bill-clintons-speech-fees-go-to-charity
The Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund
topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?offset=45&inline=nyt-per
AEGiS-WSJ: Clinton Charity Gets Price Cuts For AIDS Drugs
www.aegis.com/news/wsj/2006/WJ060102.html
The Peking Duck: Bill Clinton’s charity to assist China’s AIDS victims
www.pekingduck.org/archives/001201.php
Oh and what was that about Giuliani’s specking fees? or M
Mistercalm,
Simple put it doesn’t accomplish anything arguing with flatearthers like yourself . . . I am assuming you believe the earth is only 7,000 years old, no?
But, I do wonder how you can explain Gore as power hungry?
This is interesting . . . though not really, I suppose you can only think in tired rightwing clichés . .
Do you really assume that someone who was so “power hungry” would take the path that he has taken? You assume he knew how successful his film would be . . . who could have predicted a documentary about a slide show would be so successful? Or that when he started schlepping this show, did he know that there was even going to be a documentary made in the first place?
Oh I see, you are a flatearther and you are paranoid.
Also, if you all would care to educate yourself, the concept of Carbon Offsets is approximating how much CO2 you emit, assigning a dollar value to that tonnage and donating that value to alternative/sustainable energy production.
I would say slightly more affective than buying indulgences . . . but I don’t get it you all don’t seem to have a problem with medieval logic, why does buying indulgences bother you so much?
David said,
February 25, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Mistercalm wrote:
> That’s like saying an industrial polluter can pour waste into one
> river as long as he spends money to clean up another river!
No it’s not. Your metaphor does not apply. There is only one “river” in the case of global warming–the atmosphere. Gore places CO2 into the atmosphere, but then takes independent actions that take an equivalent amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Hence, he places zero net CO2 into the atmosphere. Are you as notable?
Seixon said,
February 25, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Well, not to rain on the Goracle parade, but Gore (well, the event promoter anyways) is charging about $250 per person to attend a lecture he is going to give in southern Norway in the middle of March. Getting a glimpse of the Goracle isn’t free, in other words.
Bozoer Rebbe said,
February 25, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
“the concept of Carbon Offsets is approximating how much CO2 you emit, assigning a dollar value to that tonnage and donating that value to alternative/sustainable energy production.”
No energy source is without environmental impact, even the so-called alternative energy or sustainable energy sources. These alternatives may pollute differently or even less, but no energy source is completely clean when you consider the necessary production and distribution infrastructure. Donating or investing money in “alternative/sustainable” energy, though it may help future technology development, actually increases the environmental impact of the person paying the “offsets” in the here and now.
With the environment, pollution and waste you have to take a holistic approach and look at the big picture. I managed waste for a large industrial r&d lab for six years and to help me do a better job I took some graduate courses in hazwaste mgmt at Wayne State’s engineering school. I’m a cycling enthusiast so for one of my papers I calculated the increased amount of CO2 that I expelled commuting to work on my bicycle. Above a heart rate of 120 bpm, you are putting out significantly more CO2 than while sedentary. The amount over a year was tons of CO2 and while it was less than what a car typically emits, if I recall correctly it was on the same order of magnitude.
David said,
February 25, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Not only is Gore a net-zero emitter of CO2, he has by his advocacy and film done more to encourage CO2 expenditures elsewhere than probably anyone alive. He inspires people to cut their own CO2 usage, and to lobby their governments to do the same. This means that overall Gore is responsible for signfiicant CO2 cutbacks.
Frank said,
February 25, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Sure David, I get it.
This is one of those liberal things where “It doesn’t matter what I’m doing because I’m doing so much for the common good.”
Dave said,
February 25, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
“The climate has changed so much in 7+ years”
What?!?!
How, pray tell?
Rich said,
February 25, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Actually, AlGores fantasy film claims a rise in sea level of around 21 feet, when the latest UN survey “Pre-release summary” states that it might reach 17 inches. Further claimed is the potential extinction of polar bears in the arctic, when in fact only four polar bear deaths due to drowning have been so far documented by scientists.
Given that AlGore has exaggerated so wildly his data to substantiate his movie’s claims, would it be any surprise that his “Carbon Neutral” claims exaggerate their actual efficacy as well?
Dave said,
February 25, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
“Gore places CO2 into the atmosphere, but then takes independent actions that take an equivalent amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Hence, he places zero net CO2 into the atmosphere. Are you as notable?”
OK, tell me how this works. How many carbon offsets has Al Gore bought to offset his multiple mansions? Say I want to buy an SUV. That’s a much smaller impact than multiple mansions. What percentages of Al Gore’s necessarily much larger offsets would I have to buy for my one SUV? And do I get a window sticker or wallet card in case some enviro gives me a hard time?
I await your specific answers to my specific questions. In fact, if I hold my breath, I bet that would be a hell of an offset right there.
Faith+1 said,
February 25, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Carbon offsets? Hehe, the biggest scam of all time. Pay some money so you can do as you please and pretend it makes a difference. It’s a false offset since no one actually ends up doing anything with it. Their is a whole economic structure built around carbon offsets that at the end of the day don’t do diddily. Invests in alternative sources of energy? What a load of BS. There is nothing preventing or requiring you to do that NOW. You don’t stop crime by agreeing to help fund the rehabilitation of another criminal so you can rob the candy store. It’s a scheme only conmen and liberals could love….
iftheshoefits said,
February 25, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
I work as a dealer/installer in the solar industry. I want to see us convert to clean, sustainable, renewable sources of energy as quickly as we reasonably can. without undue hardships on those of us who live paycheck-to-paycheck, and can’t afford higher energy prices.
But this global warming fanaticism is making me cringe. I have no argument against those that are intensely skeptical of “all things environmentalist”, when they claim that global warming has become religion. I have no argument against them because they are correct. The holier-than-thou attitude on display here is a prime example - it comes with the territory whenever true believer movements of any kind are at work.
I can list lots of good reasons to “go green”. Global warming isn’t one of them because it’s too speculative, and we’ll never really know if we’re making meainingful progress.
Les Nessman said,
February 25, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Dave said :
” “The climate has changed so much in 7+ years”
What?!?!
How, pray tell? ”
Are you kidding me?!? It’s freezing cold here. As little as six months ago, it was hot. Like, really really hot. And then, get this, six months before that, it was freezing cold. Oh, and we had a lot of windy weather, but only the day before, it was not really that windy at all!!!
It’s not like this has happened before. Only fools like you wouldn’t be scared by these unprecedented events.
Flatearther!!
iftheshoefits said,
February 25, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
BTW, I think the intention behind carbon offsets is a good one - using the market to help solve the problem. The problem is that it’s become the fashionable thing for Barbra Streisand liberals to do - it absolves guilt without really doing anything about the real problems at hand.
Fine, as far as it goes. Just don’t wear it as a badge of holiness - I’m not impressed. If you really want to do something about conspicuous consumption of energy, well… then just use a lot less energy. Can’t do it? Sure you can. It’s just that it’s damned inconvenient at times.
There’s a specific case of this type of “carbon offset” economic device that I wholeheartedly support - that is the “green credit” premium offered by most utilities. This is a special case, because utilities are required by law to provide the absolute lowest cost power they can procure, and that usually means fossil-based. If we want to see utilities pursing green energy within their regulatory mandates, some of us have to agree to pay more so the utilities can justify purchasing slightly more expensive wind power. People struggle to make ends meet shouldn’t be penalized for the green desires of others. And it’s working, yes, with the help of some gov’t subsidies as well, but we’ve got to get the ball rolling somehow.
BrianNYC said,
February 25, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
“He (Gore) inspires people to cut their own CO2 usage, and to lobby their governments to do the same.”
David said, February 25, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
————————————
As one who believes that the sun’s differing radiation levels are the causes for differing CO2 levels on earth, I disagree with the Gore premise that man is the source of heightened CO2 levels (which have heightened before without man’s help).
That being said, I am intellectually offended by Gore’s comments that life on earth will cease to exist unless we do what he reccommends. Lastly, I dismiss people like Gore who inspire other people to cut their own CO2 usage while living life to the (CO2) max themselves. He doesn’t need to own numerous CO2 producing estates to achieve his advocacy and yet he does. He doesn’t need to circumnavigate the globe by using CO2 producing private airflight and limo caravans to achieve his advocacy and yet he does. As one who “took the initiative in creating the Internet” so many years ago, Al Gore should realize that he can perform his advocacy successfully from one centralized and “CO2 friendly” location and yet he doesn’t. It seems that the only thing more flimsy than Al Gore’s environmental argument is his commitment to his own cause.
As Al Gore, Bono and other good liberals repeatedly display, “do as I say, not as I do.”
Mistercalm said,
February 25, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Jon,
You are as unserious and puerile as your hero Al Gore. Since you obviously know NOTHING of me yet you begin what you perceive as an attack on my intelligence (”Simple put it doesn’t accomplish anything arguing with flatearthers like yourself . . . I am assuming you believe the earth is only 7,000 years old, no?”) I can take it as proof you only know of the subject of manmade global warming what your insipid “hero” has said. He’s dead wrong. You’re dead wrong for believing it. I suppose it’s too much to ask for you to engage in a little research into what Al Gore is spouting and why it’s wrong. And you question his hunger for power? You actually believe he’s horning his way into the media over and over because he’s a good steward of the Earth? Puh-leeze! You know, if you had anything important to say, you’d not have to preface it with an attack on me. Since you don’t personally know me, then what you have to say is as full of #%*@ as you are, idiot.
Mistercalm said,
February 25, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
On the subject of the glorious Al Gore and how he’s paying carbon offsets… where does his so-called payment go? Is he paying his landscaper to plant more trees (maybe he could pay John Edwards’s landscaper to replace the trees that were bulldozed down to make room for his mansion)? Is he paying an enviromental organization that takes the funds and buys media time and prints brochures to increase fundraising to buy media time and print brochures to increase fundraising to buy media time… or do they actually DO anything with it? If so… what are the specifics? Gore’s supporters preach that he’s doing this… get specific! What money is paid to what organization and to what end? I find the entire argument bogus. It’s the same “”Tim Robbins at a microphone on national television saying there’s a chill in the air concerning free speech” claptrap! An oxymoron. I’d much rather be a Christian than a lunatic that subscribes to this “religion”. Manmade global warming cannot be supported by science, but the adherents have such “faith” that it’s real one cannot speak sense to them.
TexasRainmaker said,
February 25, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
These guys were never in politics to make a difference in anything but their own fame and fortunte.
Natalie said,
February 25, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Re: “Not only is Gore a net-zero emitter of CO2, he has by his advocacy and film done more to encourage CO2 expenditures elsewhere than probably anyone alive. He inspires people to cut their own CO2 usage, and to lobby their governments to do the same. This means that overall Gore is responsible for signfiicant CO2 cutbacks.”
Sure. I get it now. That is why even though Al Gore has more houses than me, travels by air much more than me, and has more personal vehicles than me….it is me that has to reduce my carbon emmissions.
I guess the “High Carbon Lifestyle” is just like any other high consumption lifestyle. It is for the Al Gores of the world that can afford them.
Bruce said,
February 25, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
“Not only is Gore a net-zero emitter of CO2″
Thats impossible. There is no such thing. Even decaying dead people give off CO2.
What you mean to say is that possibly Al has paid money to the Chinese for paper “carbon credits”. The money the Chinese recieved has gone on to be used to oppress people in Tibet and to build nuclear weapons.
It is a well known fact that China and India are producing mass quantities of EXTRA CO2 so they can recieve money for producing less. And, in fact, the do not produce less. They produce more because it is so lucrative to pollute.
richarda said,
February 25, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Ah, I remember the media firestorm when former POTUS Reagan had a couple paid foreign speaking gigs.
Oh! The humanity!
DWPittelli said,
February 25, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Bozoer Rebbe said, (2/25/2007 @ 2:20 pm)
“ I’m a cycling enthusiast so for one of my papers I calculated the increased amount of CO2 that I expelled commuting to work on my bicycle. Above a heart rate of 120 bpm, you are putting out significantly more CO2 than while sedentary. The amount over a year was tons of CO2 and while it was less than what a car typically emits, if I recall correctly it was on the same order of magnitude.”
I doubted you, so I did some off-the-cuff math. One metric ton (1,000 kilograms) of CO2 includes about 300 kilograms of carbon. This 300,000 grams of carbon is just slightly more than that many grams of fat, at 9 calories per gram, so at least 2.7 million calories. Divide by 365 days in a year, and you get 7,400 calories extra per day because of your bicycling. This could be accurate while you’re competing in the Tour de France:
(“Calories burned by a Tour rider, per day: 5,900 average; 9,000 max. Calories burned by an average 28-year-old male, per day: 2,200 average” – http://www.docsports.com/tour-de-france-history.html)
In contrast, a gallon of gasoline produces 8.8 kilograms of CO2. So 114 gallons of gas produce the same 1,000 kilograms of CO2. So driving just 2,300 or 3,400 miles in a year (at 20 or 30 MPG) creates as much CO2 as biking at a maximal level in the Tour de France… every day of the year.
Dave said,
February 25, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
“Simple put it doesn’t accomplish anything arguing with flatearthers like yourself . . . I am assuming you believe the earth is only 7,000 years old, no?”
That’s funny - because when it comes to religious fervor, faith-based belief, oxymoronic acceptance (”Global Warming causes heat waves… Global Warming causes cold snaps”), Messianic longing and sin-fueled Apocalyptism, the Global Warmers strike me as no different than the average Creationist.
Heed the Goracle! The End TImes are Nigh!
David said,
February 26, 2007 @ 2:25 am
As I was reading various blogs, I read the following very interesting comment following this link.
“As Gore has said many times, he offsets all his carbon expenditures. He’s carbon neutral, more than can be said for most of you. “
Now as many know what he is talking about are “carbon” commodities (carbon dioxide). Under Kyoto every country (save a few well known exceptions) has a carbon allowance. If your industry makes carbon over your country’s allowance you are supposed to buy carbon from a county that is below its allowance. The idea is that the demand would outrun supply, thereby making carbon commodities and futures dear. Well a funny thing happened on the way to the commodities market. Carbon crashed. Hard. Almost none of the industrial countries are paying into the scheme. This makes demand very low and supply is quite high.
In today’s market I could make my household carbon neutral for about six bucks (high fives all around). Does this mean that some industry somewhere will alter its behavior to produce less carbon? Nope, it means that some country like Botswana gets chump change for the sale (brokers in a crashed market tend to make most of the money that changes hands). Perhaps I could go to a country like Sudan, buy their carbon and get them to shut down a carbon producing unit (we call them villages).
Now Al Gore is producing millions of metric tons of carbon a year from flying privately all over the place. He goes to the carbon market, pays the wergild, and gets to claim himself carbon neutral. The world for his travels has millions of tons of carbon more than it would otherwise. Period. Tonight Al Gore will travel to the land of carbon over indulgers to no doubt receive an Oscar. And all will feel so good about themselves because they care.
Bandit said,
February 26, 2007 @ 9:05 am
All global warming began the day Bush took office. None occurred during the 8 yrs Gore was VP. And besides the only investments that are better than carbon trading are time shares. Thatis why you David, are the King of Karate.
David said,
February 26, 2007 @ 9:12 am
Dave wrote:
> I await your specific answers to my specific questions.
There are plenty of Web sites where you can calculate your carbon footprint, and there are now dozens of companies where you can purchase carbon offsets. I’m sure you’re able to find them on your own, if you would just look.
iftheshoefits said,
February 26, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER ‘TRUTH’
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh 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.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org
But he buys carbon offsets, so it’s all good. What a bunch of elitist $&^%#.