In the library

I was pleased to see that most of you have a really good start on your arguments. Remember, these essays have to be evidence-based, that is, researched! Make sure you're supporting your particular claims with evidence that you've researched. You can use sources that you used in Essay 1. Only now, you're using them to support and lend credence to the argument(s) that you're making. Make sure that you're using MLA to document these sources as well. You should have an in-text parenthetical citation each time you use a source in your paper, and you'll need a Works Cited page at the end that provides a complete bibliographic entry for each source (just like your first essay). I won't be able to accept essays that lack research.

My last post dealt with my response to Obama's speech last night, particularly his inclusion of "clean coal" in the discussion about alternative energies. Some of you might want to consider clean coal in your essays. You could use this as a "pro" coal argument, as the coal industry is touting clean coal technology as an "alternative" for the future and as a means for America to wean itself from Middle Eastern oil. Given your understanding of the coal industry and mountaintop removal, it shouldn't be hard for you to refute the clean coal argument. Will a shift toward (and investment in) clean coal stop/change/or even address the environmental calamity that is MTR? Will finding smarter, cleaner ways to burn coal result in finding smarter, cleaner ways to mine coal? Is there such a thing as clean, sustainable mining? Is there really such a thing as clean coal? I don't think so. Clean coal is a textbook oxymoron. Is there such a thing as cruel kindness? Kind cruelty? Joyful depression? Safe disasters? No. Again, clean coal is the coal industry's advertising coup d'etat, and the more charismatic leaders like Obama repeat the phrase, the more the American citizen/consumer will buy into the idea. This is one way that lies become truths: you float them out, let them drift around in the public psyche, reinforce them through unelaborated repetition, and before you know it...snap, crackle, pop...deliberate misinformation becomes factual. Last November, we dispensed with an administration that perfected this process. Case in point, the flatout fabrication that Saddam Hussein was somehow behind (or even connected to) the September 11th attacks. While we knew it was untrue, Rumsfeld and Cheney purposefully equated Saddam and 9/11 every time they had the opportunity. And guess what? Many Americans came to believe there was a direct connection bewteen the two. It was a lie that gained factual weight.

So...let's not let anyone, no matter how good the intentions and how much admiration we might hold (and I do admire Obama!), float the clean coal lie without being challenged. Let's not let this fairytale become a reality. Even if we develop the technology to sequester carbon molecules from lumps of coal, we will still have to suffer the consequences of a irreversible degraded environment.