Apparently Fox News doesn't like American veterans. Or national security. Or energy independence.
Fox has refused to carry a VoteVets energy ad. The ad "seeks to make the familiar case that climate legislation would have national security benefits by reducing the oil profits of hostile Middle Eastern states."
Since Fox refuses to support our American country, our American veterans, and our American jobs, I'm posting it here. Please feel free to pass it along to everyone. And while you're at it, make sure everyone sees this ad too.
Support our veterans, even if Fox News won't.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 68
Our veterans put their life on the line for us. They deserve us to be honest about why.
Like the HUSU and shelter dog PSAs I actually listen and watch these two!
thanks David.
I think that for one, the government would have to start practicing what they preach on all levels. By that I mean you can look at every government building, school and piece of property and see potential energy production. Then you have the private sector with even more boundless potential. If every factory, school, courthouse, police station, etc, had solar panels and miniature windmills producing energy as opposed to just sporting a layer of rocks, the amount of power produced nation wide from every city county and state would be staggering.
Alternative energy could be taught as an elective course in every high school across the country providing armies for the needed maintenance. This not only would educate the nation on how little effortless adjustments in not only energy production but consumption, recycling rainwater back into our water tables, and producing compost topsoil from left over food and waste at schools as well.
I could go on and on about my perfect beginning to dramatic revolutionary change but there is one reason why it will always be opposed by those trying to "save us" from global warming. They can't make money off of my plan and it doesn't give them control of billions upon billions of dollars leached off of the American people. The cap and trade bill and ever energy plan from the Obama administration has been based on the model of big government's attempt to get people to quit smoking. Tax it.
On this, Jeff, we can definitely agree.
So I think the second video in your post is more effective regardless of the fact that the cap and trade bills proposed have been more about government generating more revenues from and controlling consumption rather than actually decreasing it.
I'm not sure I entirely understand this point. First off, as I've noted, neither of the videos mentions "cap-and-trade" at all. Secondly, the clean energy bill that seems to have the most traction doesn't do this either, though it may be moot given Lindsey Graham's decision to back out of the bill he helped develop. And it would seem that you've missed most of the thrust of the bill, which is not about generating revenues for the government at all. It's about trying to steer us into renewable energy sources and away from oil and coal, which are not only environmentally and economically unsustainable but also adversely impact our national security. As for consumption, we consume because we are ignoring the biggest cost of carbon. Only by accurately including all the costs and benefits in the equation can free markets work.
So in one way I could see why Fox News didn't show the video which is more about exploiting the sacrifice and tragedies of war to redirect wealth into others' pockets.
Fox's official explanation was that the ad was "too confusing." They don't mention anything about it exploiting veterans, which would be a hard thing to sell given that it was created entirely by a veterans group.
Yes, and as far back as Jimmy Carter the government has tried to do this. Carter put solar panels on the White House, which Ronald Reagan had taken down immediately upon taking office. The government has many programs to encourage energy efficiency, conservation, and development of renewables. The government has, in fact, mandated recycling, efficiency, use of natural gas powered vehicles, and many other programs for its own (i.e., the government's) facilities. They would do more except one party seems intent on stopping anything that would be considered government intervention of free markets. Free markets of which still receive massive government subsidies despite raking in record profits.
Then you have the private sector with even more boundless potential. If every factory, school, courthouse, police station, etc, had solar panels and miniature windmills producing energy as opposed to just sporting a layer of rocks, the amount of power produced nation wide from every city county and state would be staggering.
Again, it seems every time the government tries to do the things you suggest the conservative elements scream socialism and attacks on free markets. And yet the free market seems unwilling to take these steps on their own. Why? Because the free market isn't actually a free market. It depends on government intervention to institute tariffs to protect it from foreign competition, federal-level laws to avoid having to deal with a patchwork of 50 different state laws, and incentives to open up offshore drilling and other activities for which the short-term ROI isn't sufficient to assuage the short-term profit motive of shareholders.
But of course as soon as the federal Department of Education would suggest such a thing the "constitutionalists" and "libertarians" would scream the federal government doesn't have a right to tell states what to do with education. That said, there are federal government programs to encourage development of such things. There are also activities developed by state and local school systems.
First off, your description of "dramatic revolutionary change" is exactly what the current administration has been trying to do and the current minority party has been trying to keep from doing. As I've described above, each of the things that you mention is already happening where the government and some innovative private companies have been able to make it happen.
Secondly, many innovative companies are already "making money" off of development of renewable resources. And more would be if 1) they tried, and 2) the minority party would stop holding back American ingenuity and innovation by refusing to do anything that doesn't solidify the status quo. The status quo, of course, is or addiction to oil, which as the ads show, endangers national security. And as we've seen the last couple of weeks, also endangers the environment and the livelihoods of the coastal Gulf fishing industry, tourist industry, and all the supporting mom-and-pop jobs.
Thirdly, the "control of billions of dollars leached off the American people" is just a bumper sticker. Ask yourself what is going on now. The oil companies are making record annual profits, which they hide offshore and pay zero federal taxes while giving their CEOs and Boards multimillion dollar annual packages and even more when they retire after laying off thousands of workers. And the taxpayers have to pay the tab.
Fourthly, the energy bill being discussed (and possibly not getting much beyond that) isn't what you are describing. You can't just tilt at some imaginary bumper sticker label without knowing at what windmill you're tilting. Put the specific provisions, and cite them from the bill, that you object to and have an honest discussion based on fact. Don't simply toss things in the air that have nothing to do with reality.
Fifthly, the options being discussed are free market based options. The old way of doing things will always be the way things are done as long as the economic incentive is there to do it. And with such commodities as oil, electricity, etc., the control of the market is in the hands of a very small number of companies. And they keep the market tilted in their favor because they are so big and because they have lobbied for decades to get incentives and tax breaks that favor them even more. They ensure that those incentives and tax breaks effectively block out competition, whether it be domestic or abroad. And now that these companies are all multinational corporations who hide their profits offshore so they don't have to pay taxes on it, and move jobs offshore when they can increase their profit, they have no allegiance to any particular country.
So while the free market lobbying echo chamber rattles on about keeping government out of their business, they work hard to get government to do exactly that when it favors them.
You have to remember; climate change isn't real – according to Fox News.
If I ran Big Oil, I would jump on the renewable energy bandwagon. Oil will NOT last forever.
Keep in mind that the less oil there is the higher the price they can demand. The cost to refine a barrel will stay about the same but they can get lots more money for it. The sort of free market will enable them to make huge profits as we slide into disaster.
combat greed and nonsense.
Fearmongers, what would they do without Iran and other radicals. Well, duh, they support Holy War in the name of RELIGION. Guess those who support FOX also support Holy War, and of course their Messiah, Jesus, did too - or did he?????? Or was it just Muhhamad that supported holy war???
Thanks for posting this David - I don't do TV at all anymore, and hadn't seen this.
You are quite correct. But the rich agenda is not conservative. It ignores the Constitution and the ethics of Christianity. It has to do only with keeping vast wealth and the control of their property in the hands of the currently wealthy. It has no other concerns at all. That is not a conservative attitude and it is not a conservative agenda. It conflicts in many fundamental ways with conservative ideals, most prominently in that it chooses to create and use big government as a tool to oppress and defraud and tax and so forth the middle classes.
We are singing from the same score.
It has never ceased to amaze me that so many people feel that the rich must have done something to deserve their wealth. Even the Horatio Alger stories always had the deserving young, eager, striving, young worker getting wealth without earning it.
It also bothers me that the middle class and poor don't seem to understand how they are being constantly taken advantage of by the powerful yet they only blame the poor and the weak. (Perhaps they fear the powerful and don't want to risk blaming them.)
The rich are conservative only in the sense that they don't want things to change not in the sense of conservative political ideals.
Fox News has the right to refuse to run any ads, it's fine to disagree with them though.
It's up to all of us to do what is right, and to stop rewarding anti-Americanism and dishonesty.
Jeff H. May 6, 2010, 9:24pm EDT
Despite Obama's election, your fascist utopia is far from fruition. That's why the FCC can't make people run propaganda for the government.
So Jeff, you support sending billions of dollars to petrostates like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. that fund terrorists? You think we should be constantly at war, risking the lives of American veterans, sending American jobs overseas, and supporting communist and terrorist states?
That is disgusting.
You got all of that from me claiming that the FCC doesn't have fascist powers to force a private companies to air government propagand? When you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME.
No, I got that from an understanding of fact, while you seem happy to spit out bumper sticker lines. Problem is, what you say has ramifications.
First off, fascism? Grow up.
Second, the FCC didn't try to force anyone to do anything. Fox decided on its own not to run the energy security ads by veterans. Why? Well, it seems because it didn't fit their preferred narrative.
Third, "government propaganda?" Please. Everything the ads say is absolutely true, i.e.,
1) we send billions of dollars every year to Iran, Saudi Arabia and other petrostates who fund terrorists that target Americans.
2) thousands of American servicemen and women have died to protect oil interests.
3) oil companies, most of which are multinationals, meaning they have no allegiance to any one country, have made record profits while still getting government subsidies, endangering American lives, and damaging the environment.
4) the myopic view of denying any science or innovation that doesn't support the corporations making billions off the status quo is holding back American ingenuity, inhibiting American innovation, sending American jobs overseas, and giving a leg up to communist China, India, and other countries who are moving forward while we play our "just say no" game.
So, Jeff, as for your ASS out of U and ME bumper sticker, it seems you got the first 2/3 right. Because frankly, when you actually listen and think about people say and do, no assumptions are necessary. What they say and do comes in loud and clear.
Just like what it says about Fox News.
If having a government entity (the FCC) force a television station (Fox) to air a commercial to advance a bill currently stalled in congress that gives government more power over everybody isn't fascist, what is?
If the commercial was about telling people that their excess consumption of energy is funding the terrorist attacks that would be fair. To say that the attacks are happening because we haven't passed a cap and tax bill is disingenuous and it's exploiting the sacrifice of our brave soldiers all for politics. It's disturbing to those who don't bow at the alter of liberalism and environmentalism.
I think you are confused...
Once again, no assumptions. Read, think, analyze. Statements have meaning. At least for most people.
If having a government entity (the FCC) force a television station (Fox) to air a commercial to advance a bill currently stalled in congress that gives government more power over everybody isn't fascist, what is?
Let's start with basic facts. No government entity (e.g., the FCC) has made any attempt to force Fox to play these ads. None. Never. Not even thought about it.
Thus, your premise for attributing fascism is based on nothing but a straw man you created in your mind.
Fox chose not to play them. That is their right to do so. But with the power of choice comes responsibility.
If the commercial was about telling people that their excess consumption of energy is funding the terrorist attacks that would be fair.
Well, that's what the commercials say. That our addiction to oil is endangering American security because oil dollars go to petrostates like Iran who fund terrorists.
To say that the attacks are happening because we haven't passed a cap and tax bill is disingenuous and it's exploiting the sacrifice of our brave soldiers all for politics.
It doesn't say that. In fact, it says nothing about a "cap-and-trade" bill. It refers only to a "clean energy climate plan." Nothing about cap-and-trade. Again, another straw man created to take pot shots at. But not in the ads by the veterans.
It's disturbing to those who don't bow at the alter of liberalism and environmentalism.
So fighting in Iraq is "bowing to the alter of liberalism and environmentalism?" If you recall it was President GW Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and their appointees who started the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. While taking their eyes off of Afghanistan, by the way, where the actual 9/11 plans and planners were and where they remain today (on the Af-Pak border) because we ignored them. And now Iran is stronger because of our actions.
None of which has to do with liberalism.
I think you are confused...
How so? You've created a series of straw men that are not reflected in fact so you can have something to attack. So I repeat:
Everything the ads say is absolutely true, i.e.,
1) we send billions of dollars every year to Iran, Saudi Arabia and other petrostates who fund terrorists that target Americans.
2) thousands of American servicemen and women have died to protect oil interests.
3) oil companies, most of which are multinationals, meaning they have no allegiance to any one country, have made record profits while still getting government subsidies, endangering American lives, and damaging the environment.
4) the myopic view of denying any science or innovation that doesn't support the corporations making billions off the status quo is holding back American ingenuity, inhibiting American innovation, sending American jobs overseas, and giving a leg up to communist China, India, and other countries who are moving forward while we play our "just say no" game.
If you would like to comment on those facts please feel free to do so. But tilting at the windmills of "FCC tyranny" when they aren't even involved, and "liberal attempts to force a cap-and-trade bill down our throats" when the ads don't even advocate a specific remedy, is well, just a way to not take responsibility for our actions. And not be honest with our veterans, who as you say, have often given the ultimate sacrifice.
And the simple fact is that our addiction to oil is a very large part of our national security problem. It's also why China and other nations are working hard to develop renewable energy technologies while they are sopping up all the oil in the world that they can get their hands on.
Meanwhile, the US just says no.
Myopic? Dangerously so.
I'm sure Fox is perfectly happy running the institutional ads the oil companies have been turning out by the barrel full lately. :)
This is how and no, don't expect David to interpret English. He is better at accusations and demagoguery.
""" Devin Barber May 6, 2010, 2:22pm EDT
Why the FCC hasn't jerked their license is beyond me."""""
That's how the discussion got twisted. Readership my friends...Readership...
Why the FCC hasn't jerked their license is beyond me. Having employees of any radio or TV station or network actively campaigning is a direct violation of FCC code... What gives man???
So Devin believes that the FCC should void Fox's license because Fox, which is supposed to be a news organization, actively campaigns for one political party, which is in violation of an FCC code.
He didn't say anything about the FCC pulling Fox's license because they refused to play the ads.
So no, the discussion wasn't twisted because Devin twisted it. It was twisted because others read Devin's comment incorrectly, i.e., through the distorted lenses that create the windmills at which some seem intent to tilt.
Some cable news stations are just like pro-wrestling. Emotive crack.
But I reckon it has been that way in many other media over the centuries. We just forget the crap.
That would seem to describe it perfectly. The goal is ratings, even if you have to fake patriotism to do it.
Stopping by to give you a view and a comment
have a nice day.
Second, if the Saudis and others can see the writing on the wall that they are going to get less money in the future, they will raise the price, which they will do anyway, in fact, just figure they are going to bleed us as far as they can for as much as they can for as long as they can no matter what we do. We are going to be hanging right on the edge of recession from now on because of energy costs. It is almost a logical reasonable thing to militarily occupy the Middle East to guard our oil ... brought on by our own stupidity. I'd almost be for it if we could really punish our government and industry leaders who led us to this mess.
Third, if we put in place a huge infrastructure, that takes huge capital investment, that is a huge risk ... what if we found out global warming was untrue, or nuclear power took off, or fusion energy came online. What do we finance this with?
Under the system we have now there is no reason to do anything that does not pay off in huge profits ... profits which go to a small minority that has a history of bleeding us Americans just as much or more than OPEC, in fact the cost of oil is not increasing but gas is going up, so it is really the speculators that are getting all that money. That's the way they like it.
Iran is not really making out so great, they are paying a high internal price in terms of demonstrations and anti-government activities, and the more they clamp down the more problems they have. Gas and water are scarce in Iran too since they do not have much refining capability.
There is not a clear roadmap here, ... given our current economic system. Just smiling and saying green is not a clear answer.
Now, if we were able to be a little protectionist, which is what is necessary, and if we flattened out the wealth curve we could solve a lot of problems in terms of consumer demand, jobs, and start to get this country back to a more citizen driven model, then we could draw down the military a bit ... but it would take a long time. Basically my theory is that if we solve the soclal and economic justice provblems in America - we can do anything and we will have plenty of money - but it brings instability to the status quo so it will not get support.
We are in a real pickle, in this country you are fine if you believe in and serve the "machine" ... the "military junta" as I like to half-jokingly refer to it, if not, your days are numbered.
It is clear that the status quo is going to maintain and extend the empire as long and hard as they can, and if that means disconnecting Americans from any safety net, including the Constitution, they will do it. They already have.