Colbert chosen AP Celebrity of the Year

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_en_ot/ye_celebrity_of_the_year

Colbert chosen AP Celebrity of the Year
By JAKE COYLE, AP Entertainment Writer
Thu Dec 20, 2007

While most TV characters remain boxed inside the frames of our sets, Stephen Colbert has routinely injected his on-screen persona into everything from the presidential race to ice cream.

In 2007, the mock pundit on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" exceeded the influence of most real pundits, orchestrating an ill-fated (and Doritos-sponsored) run for president and topping the best-seller lists with his book "I Am America (And So Can You!)."

Colbert failed to get onto the primary ballot in his home state of South Carolina, dooming his hopes for the White House. And his show went 0-for-4 at the Emmy Awards, including an especially painful loss to Barry Manilow.

But Colbert did win one honor: He was voted AP Celebrity of the Year by newspaper editors and broadcast producers who said Colbert had the biggest impact on pop culture in 2007.

He finished just a nudge above J.K. Rowling, who authored the final book in her enormously popular "Harry Potter" series. Finishing third was Al Gore, whose year included an Oscar, an Emmy, a Nobel Peace Prize and the global concert Live Earth.

Voting was otherwise spread out across many entertainers, including pop star Britney Spears, "Hannah Montana" star Miley Cyrus, rapper Kanye West, comedy director and producer Judd Apatow and country singer Kenny Chesney.

But it was the slight, bespectacled Colbert — his hair never ruffled, suits forever pressed — who dominated the year. Even from the relatively small stage of late-night cable TV, his satire spread into all corners of media and society — and for a few weeks made a mockery of the democratic system.

Colbert has declined interviews during the writers strike that has shuttered his show, but he told The Associated Press by e-mail:

"In receiving this award, I am pleased that I was chosen over two great spinners of fantasy — J.K. Rowling and Al Gore. It is truly an honor to be named the Associated Press' Celebrity of the Year. Best of all, this makes me the official front-runner for next year's Drug-Fueled Downward Spiral of the year. P.S. Look for my baby bump this spring!"

Julio Diaz, entertainment editor for the Pensacola News Journal, explained his vote for the faux newsman:

"Colbert is more than an entertainer, he's a force of nature," said Diaz. "He's influenced the way we look at the news and even the way we speak. Whenever a major news story breaks, one of my first thoughts is what Colbert's spin on the story will be."

Colbert began his year by facing off against his inspiration, Bill O'Reilly. In one afternoon, Colbert and the Fox News commentator traded guest appearances on each other's shows in an exchange Colbert called "a meeting of the guts."

The meeting had been anticipated since Colbert's 2005 debut of "The Report," a deadpan fun-house mirror held up to "The O'Reilly Factor" and other conservative news programs.

In early 2007, Colbert became the namesake of the new Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavor "Americone Dream." This followed in a tradition of naming things after Colbert, like the mascot for the Saginaw Spirit, an Ontario Hockey League team, "Steagle Colbeagle the Eagle."

While taping an episode on June 27, Colbert fell and broke his wrist — a minor event for most, but weeks of fodder for Colbert. The following month, he unveiled a "wrist awareness" campaign in which he urged anyone famous to wear a "WristStrong" bracelet (similar to Lance Armstrong's "LiveStrong" bands).

Showcasing his extremely detail-centric sense of humor, Colbert said on a September show: "If (Alan) Greenspan can do for my bracelets what he did for secured short-term lending through federal repurchasing agreements — can you imagine how great that would be?"

But Colbert's main act would be the run-up to his White House campaign and his ensuing bid for the nation's highest office. While promoting his new book, Colbert appeared on news programs and wrote a guest column for The New York Times mocking the dance many candidates go through before officially declaring their candidacy.

Colbert eventually announced on his program on Oct. 16, where he made it clear he aimed to parody everything about image-sensitive political campaigns. He appeared beforehand on "The Daily Show" sitting on a bale of hay and drinking a beer to show that he was an Average Joe.

The 43-year-old comedian jokingly suggested his ticket could read "Colbert-Huckabee," referring to former Arkansas governor Republican Mike Huckabee. Huckabee had made several appearances on "The Report" (making him a "friend of the show"). Huckabee's candidacy was then something of a joke; now he has zoomed to the top of the polls.

Colbert's announcement set off dialogue across the political landscape about the legitimacy of his candidacy and how he might impact the primaries.

Wrote New York Times columnist David Carr: "It is Mr. Colbert's ability to both mimic and amplify the tics of political convention and play them back with just a little more topspin that makes his satire so discomfiting."

Colbert said he would run only in his native South Carolina, but after he applied to get his name on the state's Democratic primary ballot (the Republican fee was too high), party officials voted 13-3 to keep Colbert off, claiming he "serves to detract from the serious candidates."

Soon thereafter, Colbert announced that he was withdrawing: "Although I lost by the slimmest margin in presidential election history — only 10 votes — I have chosen not to put the country through another agonizing Supreme Court battle. It is time for this nation to heal."

Colbert's withdrawal may have been hastened by the Hollywood writers strike, which shut down production on "The Report" in early November. Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom Inc., announced Thursday that both "The Report" and "The Daily Show" will return to the air on Jan. 7, with or without their writing staffs.

On his last episode of the year, Colbert said: "As you know, except for my 13 writers and production crew, I do this show single-handedly four nights a week. I'm also raising a family, promoting a book and, hey, two weeks ago I said, `Let's run for president.' I haven't gotten a wink since I blacked out talking to Tim Russert."

Beast of the Month - August 2007

Beast of the Month - August 2007
James Inhofe, Oklahoma Senator

"I yam an anti-Christ... "
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"

Granted, the Live Earth concert didn't have a single defining moment, like a Pink Floyd reunion or Sir Paul McCartney singing "Sgt. Pepper" with U2 (much less Freddie Mercury rocking Wembley in 1985.) And it's true (as Matt Drudge would mince with joy over on his Website) that the Al Gore founded concert didn't do well in the TV markets of either the US or UK. And it's also true the concert had its share of critics who slammed the event for lacking concrete goals (although the main promulgator of this criticism, Bob Geldof of Live Aid and Live 8 fame, may just be moaning because both Gore and Bono have passed him in the Nobel Peace Prize sweepstakes.)

Still, with all due respect to Elvis, 2 billion Live Earth viewers in the world can't be wrong. And while the English-market TV ratings may have been a flop, it was even a huger hit on the Net than Live 8, becoming the most viewed event in Web history. Besides, its hard to knock any concert that could unite the following talents: The Beastie Boys, The Black Eyed Peas, Bon Jovi, Kelly Clarkson, Chris Cornell, Duran Duran, The Foo Fighters, Genesis, Macy Gray, Enrique Iglesias, Keane, Alicia Keys, Lenny Kravitz, Ludacris, Dave Matthews, MIA, The Police, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Shakira, The Smashing Pumpkins, Snoop Dogg, Spinal Tap, Cat Stevens, Joss Stone, KT Tunstall, Keith Urban and Kanye West (as well as The Pussycat Dolls, Xuxa and, from the Antartic, the climate researching indie rock band Nunatak.)

Some may say the big winner in the Live Earth sweepstakes was Al Gore, who appears ready for a political comeback that would put Tricky Dick in '68 to shame. For once, that may be a little too cynical for The Konformist. As far as we're concerned, the big winner of the Live Earth concert is the Earth itself. Because for all the hype and all the criticisms of Live Earth, it did succeed at its one main goal: making climatic change issues a central focus of the world population. This was no more evident than in the USA, where global warming is now a mainstream issue that can't be ignored or mocked by politicians seeking the White House.

Right about now The Konformist can hear the clicking of keyboards as throngs of angry emails are being written. No doubt we'll get letters accusing us of buying into the NWO communist conspiracy and declaring that "Global Warming is a hoax!" Fair enough, it comes with the territory. And it’s true that there are some who dispute the evidence of global warming that we can't ignore or dismiss (most notably the fine folks at PrisonPlanet.com.) Besides, The Konformist has long been a promoter of dissident science, most notably with the cold fusion controversy, AIDS-HIV claims and even the debates surrounding evolution (even if we doubt that the universe was created 6,000 years ago in six days by a silver-haired god-man.) We encourage debates about scientific issues, and global warming and climatic change should be no different.

The problem is, the vast majority of supposed "science" challenging climatic change theories is nothing more than pseudo-science of the worst kind, namely korporate financed propaganda to promote their own business. In this case, we're referring to the oil industry (with ExxonMobil front and center) peddling fraudulence to cover their own culpability.

It doesn't help that the leading proponents of "global-warming denial" in the political sphere are such blatantly self-discrediting asses. Leading the charge is Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma senator and The Konformist Beast of the Month. A right-wing buffoon of the worst sort, he once declared that global warming was "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state." He has compared environmentalists to Nazis, the EPA to the Gestapo, and linked the "global warming hoax" to a conspiracy involving the Weather Channel as part of the plot to increase viewers. Despite these statements and viewpoints, he was incredibly the Senate Environment Committee Chairman before the GOP got their ass kicked in the 2006 election.

Unsurprisingly, the environment isn't the only area where Inhofe is a first-rate jackass. Though he cites the Bible as the source for most of his political stances, he has defended the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and was one of only nine senators to vote against an amendment banning torture on individuals in US Government custody. (So much for turn the other cheek.) As for gay marriages, he declared a group photo of his family "the most important prop we’ll have" in the debate over the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution, bizarrely adding: "My wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship."

Still, Inhofe seems even more obsessed about Global Warming than fags getting married. Perhaps that's because oil companies are more plentiful in Oklahoma than gay bars. In his last campaign in 2002, the only senate nominee who received more oil company funding than Inhofe was John Cornyn of, unsurprisingly, Texas.

In his defense, though, The Konformist suspects that Inhofe may be such a fool he actually believes his pronouncements. The same can't be said for Dick Cheney, who deceptively declared in February about climatic change: "We're going to see a big debate on it going forward... the extent to which it is part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man." He added it's "not enough to just sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that's going to 'solve' the problem." (Too bad such statements were never applied to "The War on Terror.") Thanks to Donkey Dick, the Bush Administration has filled the EPA and other agencies with hacks serving the oil industry bottom line and repeating lies as though they are truth. In the end, such deceits may lead to more damage than the lies leading to the Iraq Quagmire.

Fortunately, barring a blatantly dictatorial coup in 2008 (which The Konformist can't rule out the possibility of at this point) Cheney and his minions will be out of power very soon. As for Inhofe, though he appears safe for reelection in 2008, he has become an increasingly marginalized figure. This was shown powerfully last March, during Senate hearings featuring Al Gore. After Inhofe had repeatedly cutting off Gore from answering questions that he had asked, California Senator Barbara Boxer (one of the few Democrats in the senate with any guts) finally cut him off, pointing out she was now chair of the Environment Committee, not him. As Boxer put it: "You’re not making the rules. You used to when you did this. Elections have consequences. So I make the rules.” The audience responded by applauding loudly.

Even after being put in his place by Ms. Boxer, Inhofe tried to get his petty revenge on Gore, using parliamentary tricks to block the North American leg of the Live Earth concert from taking place at the National Mall in DC. He succeeded, to a degree, as the main North American concert took place at Giants Stadium in New Jersey instead. However, in a last minute deal, a special set featuring country superstar Garth Brooks and his wife Trisha Yearwood was presented at the Washington Mall after all, courtesy of the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian. As Gore put it, "Some who don't understand what is now at stake tried to stop this event on the Mall, but here we are. And it wasn't the cavalry who came to our rescue, it was the American Indians." The Konformist couldn't put it any better. And frankly, when it comes to the issue of climate change, we think a side that includes Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Garth Brooks and Tonto is a winner over one featuring Inhofe, Donkey Dick and ExxonMobil. A winner, that is, in honesty, morality and, hopefully, politically.

In any case, we salute James Inhofe as Beast of the Month. Congratulations, and keep up the great work, Jimmy!!!

Live Earth Pledge

http://www.algore.com/pledge/

7.7.07
Live Earth Pledge

I PLEDGE:

To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"

To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;

To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.

Moving Beyond Kyoto

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/opinion/01gore.html

July 1, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Moving Beyond Kyoto
By AL GORE
Nashville

WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.

As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.

Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.

On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.

Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

This threat also requires us, in Reagan’s phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.

Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, “If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?”

Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the pledge are available at algore.com.)

But individual action will also have to shape and drive government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most of our short history, the United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon — all were the result of American leadership.

Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.

To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.

This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.

Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 — and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.

If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.

A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.

There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?

Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future — indeed, the future of all human civilization — is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced — even as the danger bears down on us.

We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic opportunities offered by a clean energy future.

But there’s something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.

Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of “The Assault on Reason.”

Gore could still steal the show

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0%2C%2C2114538%2C00.html

Poll of Democrats reveals Gore could still steal the show
· Clinton would be big loser if ex-vice president ran
· Republicans also unhappy with current candidates
Simon Tisdall in Washington
Friday June 29, 2007
The Guardian

A presidential election poll suggesting Democratic voters would prefer former vice-president Al Gore to any of the declared contenders, including frontrunner Hillary Clinton, has highlighted continuing dissatisfaction among supporters of both main parties with the choice of candidates to succeed George Bush.

The poll, conducted in New Hampshire by 7News and Suffolk University, confirmed Ms Clinton's nationwide double-digit lead over her main rival, Illinois senator Barack Obama. The former first lady and New York senator attracted 37% support, against Mr Obama's 19%. John Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, was on 9%.


But if Mr Gore were to seek the Democratic nomination, 29% of Ms Clinton's backers would switch their support to him, the poll found. When defections from other candidates are factored in, the man who controversially lost to Mr Bush in the 2000 election takes command of the field, with 32% support.

Both the Democrats and Republicans will contest primary elections in New Hampshire on January 22.

Mr Gore has repeatedly denied he is planning a White House run. But the absence so far of a strong, unifying choice for the Democratic nomination, Mr Gore's enhanced reputation as an environmental campaigner, and deep Republican divisions are encouraging speculation that he may change his mind.

"I have not ruled out the possibility of getting into politics some time in the future but I don't expect to because I don't expect things to change," Mr Gore says in an interview in the July edition of Fast Company magazine. "If they did change, then I would feel differently."

David Terr, a political analyst at USAelectionpolls.com, said the 7News poll was based on a small voter sample and had a large margin of error. But it reinforced a pattern in the polls that showed Mr Gore gaining support nationally.

"His gaining six points in six months is ... just what he needs to justify running for the presidency," Mr Terr said. "He can say that the American people wanted him to run. So the image about him being a sore loser or desperate to become president or someone that is not a man of the people can be thrown into the trash."

"If Al Gore runs, Republicans should be very afraid," said one blogger on Politico.com yesterday. "As much as they like to make fun of him, no one can deny that he is the candidate that has the most appeal and ability to energise his base."

Mr Gore's rehabilitation is accelerating as America's political agenda steadily moves towards issues such as climate change that he has long championed.

"In what may be the greatest brand makeover in history, Gore is being hailed as a visionary who was right about everything from global warming to Iraq," writes Fast Company's Ellen McGirt. "At 59, he's an Academy award winner, a bestselling author, a frontrunner for the Nobel prize, and a concert promoter."

Mr Gore is likely to make headlines again with the Live Earth concerts on July 7. He has helped to organise the eight shows, to be held simultaneously around the world, to raise awareness and funds to combat global warming.

As Democrats struggle to measure the potential impact of undeclared candidates, similar imponderables are dogging the Republicans.

Analysts say the national lead held by Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, could quickly disappear if, as expected, Fred Thompson, an actor and former Tennessee senator, steps in next week.

Another wild card is the undeclared but widely expected independent candidacy of the current New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg. If he runs, polls suggest Mr Giuliani would be the biggest loser. To complicate matters, Ralph Nader, the consumer activist whose third-party challenge dished Mr Gore in 2000, says he may also run as an independent.