Phelim McAleer and his wife Ann McElhinney are journalists and documentary filmmakers. You may remember Not Evil Just Wrong (2009), their takedown of Al Gore and Global Warming hysteria. Now they want to tell the truth about natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in a full-length documentary titled FrackNation . McAleer says: FrackNation will skeptically examine some of the scarier claims made by anti-fracking activists and look at how shale gas is helping some of the poorest communities in the US and potentially across the planet. It will feature small farmers, the working class and others who are benefiting from this economic boom. We will look at the backgrounds and motives of those opposing fracking. [Click here to see the producers' Kickstarter pitch for the project. (2:53)] FrackNation will go head-to-head with GasLand II , Josh Fox’s planned sequel to GasLand (2010), the highly effective anti-gas propaganda piece. With scant concern for earth science and demonstrable fact, GasLand earned an Academy Award nomination and stirred up anti-fracking hysteria nationwide with its memorable footage of flaming faucets. PBS and HBO will jointly bankroll Gasland II to the tune of $750,000. It is set to air on HBO this fall. Here’s how you can fight back: To tell their grassroots tale, McAleer, McElhinney and co-producer Magda Segieda will rely on grassroots financing. The website kickstarter.com provides a fundraising platform for creative projects. FrackNation ‘s goal is a modest $150,000. For as little as $1.00 , you can support a professional, fact-based counterargument to GasLand II . $20 donors will receive a copy of the DVD upon release. All donors will be named executive producer of the project. But why fracking? In 2011, McAleer called out Josh Fox, quite publicly , for conveniently neglecting to tell GasLand ‘s audience that flammable methane in groundwater is unrelated to gas development, and in fact predates gas development in Colorado, New York, and Pennsylvania. The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission looked into the claims in their state and concluded that the gas was “biogenic” in origin (i.e., naturally-occurring shallow gas, and not deep gas-well gas). Fox dismissed those reports as “not relevant”: Fox and his attorneys had the video above shut down for a time on both youtube and vimeo. The attempt at suppression inspired Phelim and Ann in their current project. Josh Fox is an intelligent man must be quite aware that he is pandering to the fears of the people. Radical environmentalists see cheap natural gas as the #1 threat to the development of wind, solar and other alternative forms of energy. By playing fast and loose with the facts, they can mobilize public sentiment against gas development. That’s why it’s important and timely to counter those arguments with facts and reason. “Normally, Kickstarter projects are pro-radical environmentalism,” said McAleer. “ FrackNation will be the first documentary funded through Kickstarter to challenge the environmental establishment. It will appeal to the workers and small farmers who know the truth, but never see it represented in modern documentaries.” Fundraising began quietly on Monday, with a full press campaign due on Tuesday. As of this writing [Tuesday morning], a total of nearly $7,500 $14,600, 5% ~10% of the goal, had already been achieved. [Updated 5:00 pm ET, 2/7. - Ed.] Cross=posted at stevemaley.com .
Visit link:
Coming Soon: FrackNation
Rick Santorum criticized both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney on Social Security. It was the first time Santorum has gone after Gingrich in any significant way. Santorum claimed that Newt’s Social Security reforms (which are essentially Herman Cain’s Social Security reforms) would add to the deficit while. He also criticized Romney for not advocating reducing Social Security benefits for high income earners. When it came time for Romney to respond he said “Rick is right” where it concerned Newt’s Social Security platform while not mentioning Santorum’s critique of him. This is a microcosm of the race. I realize Santorum and Newt want to be the alternative to Romney but when they criticize each other they strengthen Romney even if they include him in their criticisms.
View original post here:
Romney Enjoys Newt, Santorum Discord on Social Security
I’m at the Santorum event tonight in Iowa. Nate Silver at the New York Times says we should not be surprised by a Santorum win, and I would not be surprised by a Santorum win. It is very possible based on the strength of evangelicals showing up across Iowa today to organize and get to the caucuses tonight.. These people really, really do not want Mitt Romney. However misguided I may think it is, because others have flamed out they are rallying to Santorum as the alternative. But Santorum didn’t see it coming. We’re in a small location overloaded with press risers. The place is small for the standards of a front runner, though I’m sure we’ll hear the word “cozy.” Heck, I might use the word cozy to describe it. Santorum’s party tonight reflects the campaign — it started off small, didn’t really expect what was coming, and tonight will be packed. I suspect the Fire Marshall is going to use “excess capacity” to describe it by 9pm. The media just overwhelms the room. And in Iowa the Hawkeye Caucii start in about 30 minutes.
The rest is here:
Santorum Did Not Expect This
A week before the Iowa caucuses, Jennifer Rubin is urging conservatives to get with the program and hop on the Mitt Romney bandwagon. As a preliminary matter, it will be incumbent on Romney antagonists, should he win the nomination, to give up the fiction that the “elites” or “insiders” or “establishment” foisted Romney on the party. The notion that any clique could exercise such power was always a red herring, but if Romney wins a majority of delegates it will be confirmation that he, and not his antagonists, have the confidence of the Republican electorate. Whether the pundits who railed against him might then consider how little they understand the actual electorate (as opposed to their limited readership) would be an open question…. In short, it will be time for anti-Romney forces, who flourish most visibly in the punditocracy and among activists and select organizations, to get real and get with the Romney election effort unless they want four more years of Obama. (And frankly some do, for being out of power allows them to foment continual discontent in the base and posit themselves as the guardians of political purity.) Look, I’ve been saying for quite some time
[Posted by Karl] Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has joined House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) on a bipartisan plan to revamp Medicare. The crux of the matter is that Ryan ostensibly gets a premium support plan of the sort he has long championed, while Wyden ostensibly gets traditional Medicare enshrined as one of the options for seniors’ helath insurance. Ed Morrissey likes the introduction of more competition into the Medicare system and the supposed political benefit of potentially blunting Democrats’ Mediscare tactics in the upcoming election. Ben Domenech asks eight questions of Ryan that need to be addressed (although I think Ben’s concern about the lack of means-testing overlooks that the plan contemplates wealthy seniors getting less) and fears the Ryan-Wyden proposal will be viewed as a “walkback” that will actually hurt Republicans who stuck out their necks on the Medicare reforms Ryan included in the House budget. On a political level, the fact that the GOP frontrunners are already closer to Ryan-Wyden than the House budget suggests to me that the proposal will not affect the overall political environment much. On a policy level, given that this is a mere proposal, rather than legislation, most of the devil will be in the details. Aside from Domenech’s primary point that it may be too late on a solvency basis, the two questions that concern me most are: (1) the potential for Medicare to engage in unfair competition in the premium support system (as the so-called “ public option ” would have under Obamacare); and (2) relying on Congress and the Independent Payment Advisory Board to restrain costs. The latter is actually somewhat less of a concern to me than you might think. Kicking the cost can down the road is already the status quo. The introduction of IPAB under Obamacare pushes the system in the direction of rationing by cutting payments to hospitals and doctors, which will force many doctors out of the health care system, decreasing access and likely quality of care. Getting a premium support system in place at least advances market competition as the alternative for cost containment, which is more attractive as policy and politics. However, that assumes fair competition, which is why the role Medicare would play in the new system is key. To be effective, a premium support system including Medicare would have to reform Medicare to make it equivalent to a private plan , without taxpayer subsidy… and that’s where I think Dems would start an enormous pushback, even though Pres. Obama essentially conceded the argument during the debate over Obamacare. Nevertheless, Ryan may be calculating that Republicans would rather have a debate over reforming Medicare to eliminate unfair competition than its outright elimination. –Karl
Read the original:
What’s behind the Ryan-Wyden Medicare plan?
