It’s been a tough couple of weeks for my least favorite Tennessean, Al Gore. First those horrible emails are leaked that start to discredit the one thing that almost gave Al a legitimate platform in the media since his political career went up in flames.

Then he dropped out of a speaking engagement at the the holiest event in the church of climate change, the Copenhagen conference.

Now, two members of the Academy are demanding that he return his Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth according to Top of the Ticket.

But two Hollywood conservatives (yes, there are some) have called upon the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to rescind the prestigious, profitable gold Oscar statuette that it gave ex-Vice President Al Gore two years ago for the environmental movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both Academy members, are among a small, meandering pack of known political conservatives still believed to be on the loose in the liberal bastion of movie-making.

It’s doubtful that this will ever happen since so many people in Hollywood bought into eco-chic and traded in their expensive cars for a Prius. However, it is entertaining to slowly watch this sham unravel.

I’m not necessarily opposed to global warming. It could be true. We have done a lot of environmental damage in the last few hundred years and haven’t done a very good job of following God’s command to take care of the earth. But I question anything that demands we dramatically change our lifestyles and way of life based on a few years of questionable science. I wish the climate change believers, which at this point are following their science with a cult-like devotion, would be open to an honest debate about how the free market can make changes to better the environment.

Update: Politico has a Q&A with Al Gore about climate change and somehow neglects to ask him about the biggest scandal to face that issue? Great journalism there.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged to have the most transparent administration ever. This was one of the first promises he broke by not posting bills to the web for a full five days before he signed them.

It appears, he is also not as transparent with his digital media prowess as the administration claimed:

Well, first of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter. I noticed that young people — they’re very busy with all these electronics. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone.

Is this a major deal? Kind of. When you run your campaign on the premise that you’re the most amazing thing to happen to the Internet since Al Gore, you open yourself to criticism in the future, especially when your campaign was lauded for being an early adopter of the technology in question.

Sarah Granger at TechPresident opines:

Meanwhile, I expect we’ll see more hoopla about Barack Obama not using Twitter, even though his campaign never asserted that he did himself. So far about half of the follow-up tweets on the #obamacn hashtag are RT’s about the admission and the other half is people responding that they never thought he was tweeting. Are 50% of Twitter users really that surprised?

Yep, actually Sarah we are surprised. For a number of reasons.

First, remember all of the media attention about Obama refusing to give up his BlackBerry and the NSA having to build a super-deluxe-ultimately-secure version of software? That kind of negates Obama’s comment about thumbs and makes you question if he fully understand exactly what Twitter is. If you are addicted to a BlackBerry, how do you not have the skills to tweet? Same device and skill set. It’s also possible to use Twitter on a computer. Tweetdeck anyone?

Secondly, as James Richardson at RedState recalls, the Obama team released an add attacking McCain for not using technology. While the McCain camp deserved to be flogged for their lack of enagaging the interwebs, John McCain actually tweets every day. As Top of the Ticket points out, he has nearly 1.6 million followers. RedState notes:

(more…)