Apparently the point of these Gaiapalooza concerts is that they’ll raise awareness of global warming. You know, just in case you’ve never heard of it and require a seven-nation, 120-network Woodstock of warmening to bring you up to speed.
But if raising awareness is so crucial, why does Al Gore place restrictions on media coverage of his awareness-raising speeches? It’s all they’re talking about in sunny downtown Saskatchewan:
Gore’s contract bans reporters from recording audio or shooting video.
Questions are being raised because the province is fronting the $200,000 it costs for the former U.S. vice-president to speak through its publicly owned telephone company SaskTel.
Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert says Gore’s mere presence is sufficient:
“His very presence in the province ... raises the important issue of the climate crisis change that is confronting us,” said Calvert.
This Calvert fellow is evidently Saskatchewan’s supreme spinmaster. His next line is brilliant:
He said the fact reporters are doing stories on not being allowed into the speech is in itself raising awareness of climate change.
I would scoff and joke about it but I’m suddenly not the least bit amused. Pelosi refuses to meet with president Bush. The Dem presidential candidates are refusing to debate on FOX. Gore doesn’t want his speeches recorded by potential unfriendlies. And I’m reminded of our last local election cycle where people had to sneak personal recording devices into speeches or debates because the Dem candidates refused to allow themselves to be recorded. And that was at the few debates that happened. Democrat candidates refused debates over and over. I don’t think there was a even single debate between candidates for some of the offices.
And it’s working ... I look around and the same strategy is being employed, no cameras, no recordings, or else no meetings at all.
It’s not funny. It’s frightening, and mostly because the tactic is downright *lauded* by the Democratic base.
Page 1 of 1 pages