Brainwashing 101 Coming to a High School near You
I was sitting at the spa yesterday flipping through magazines and came across the December issue of Us Magazine. I know, I know, I should quit reading these magazines, but I am interested as a psychologist, in how pop culture affects the political thinking in our schools and society--so give me a break.
Anyway, the little tidbit I came across was buried on page 30 under a page entitled, "Hot Pics!" in the December 25th issue that showed a smiling Sheryl Crow posing with Larry David and his wife, Laurie. The caption reads, "'In the spring, we're showing An Inconvenient Truth in high schools and it'll be fun,' Sheryl Crow tells Us of working with Larry David's activist wife, Laurie, who was honored at a Self magazine benefit in West Hollywood Dec. 7."
An Inconvenient Truth is the Al Gore documentary produced by Laurie David among others. It appears Ms. David was upset when they tried to distribute 50,000 free documentaries to the National Science Teachers Association. According to a recent Washington Post editorial, producers of Al Gore's documentary on global warming "An Inconvenient Truth" wanted to give 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association for distribution to schools as an educational tool, but their offer was turned down. The NSTA says they cannot endorse any particular product.
Uhh, the oil industry is trying to buy themselves a classroom soapbox? And what would you be trying to do? Isn't using Hollywood stars like Sheryl Crow and the others involved in An Inconvenient Truth to pimp your product for you exactly what you are accusing the oil industry of doing? I am sure you are not getting a dime from them or any support. Yeah, right.
It seems that Laurie David is a contributor to the Huffington Post blog which tells you all you need to know about her politics. I think that the NSTA's refusal to let special interest groups hijack the schools is noble. Because really, if An Inconvenient Truth is distributed to high schools, shouldn't the rest of us get to choose other special interest documentaries that students view? I have some suggestions.
How about Dave Hardy's In Search of the Second Amendment documentary, a great film that can teach our kids about their right to bear arms, or Dead Meat by Stuart Browning about the horrors of Universal Healthcare or Indoctrinate U by Evan Coyne Maloney, a film that explains how politically correct liberals like Laurie David and her ilk are trying to hijack the schools. At least then the kids would be getting exposed to opinions they won't find in Us magazine.
Anyway, the little tidbit I came across was buried on page 30 under a page entitled, "Hot Pics!" in the December 25th issue that showed a smiling Sheryl Crow posing with Larry David and his wife, Laurie. The caption reads, "'In the spring, we're showing An Inconvenient Truth in high schools and it'll be fun,' Sheryl Crow tells Us of working with Larry David's activist wife, Laurie, who was honored at a Self magazine benefit in West Hollywood Dec. 7."
An Inconvenient Truth is the Al Gore documentary produced by Laurie David among others. It appears Ms. David was upset when they tried to distribute 50,000 free documentaries to the National Science Teachers Association. According to a recent Washington Post editorial, producers of Al Gore's documentary on global warming "An Inconvenient Truth" wanted to give 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association for distribution to schools as an educational tool, but their offer was turned down. The NSTA says they cannot endorse any particular product.
In an editorial, Laurie David, one of the film's producers, says this decision was based largely on the NSTA's connection with the ExxonMobil Corp., which has given funds to the association. Ms. David writes that "through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox."
Uhh, the oil industry is trying to buy themselves a classroom soapbox? And what would you be trying to do? Isn't using Hollywood stars like Sheryl Crow and the others involved in An Inconvenient Truth to pimp your product for you exactly what you are accusing the oil industry of doing? I am sure you are not getting a dime from them or any support. Yeah, right.
It seems that Laurie David is a contributor to the Huffington Post blog which tells you all you need to know about her politics. I think that the NSTA's refusal to let special interest groups hijack the schools is noble. Because really, if An Inconvenient Truth is distributed to high schools, shouldn't the rest of us get to choose other special interest documentaries that students view? I have some suggestions.
How about Dave Hardy's In Search of the Second Amendment documentary, a great film that can teach our kids about their right to bear arms, or Dead Meat by Stuart Browning about the horrors of Universal Healthcare or Indoctrinate U by Evan Coyne Maloney, a film that explains how politically correct liberals like Laurie David and her ilk are trying to hijack the schools. At least then the kids would be getting exposed to opinions they won't find in Us magazine.
posted by Helen at 8:19 AM
47 Comments:
I am a community college instructor not too far away from the scene of this crime, yet I have to say that it doesn't worry me much anymore. Sometimes I'll get a paper from a student who has gone to the librarian for help and its obvious that the librarian's lefty politics have strongly influenced the writing of the paper, but the poor student really doesn't give a damn about it and has only done what the librarian told him or her to do, thinking therein lies the road to an A. An immigrant Asian student needs a perfect GPA to get into the UC system so suddenly the Asian student who barely knows Al Gore from the man in the moon is "worried" about global warming. As a Poli Sci prof, I don't really promote my more conservative views in the classroom but gently lampoon all politicians. As such, I am a refreshing antidote to my Stalinist colleagues who are apt to flunk students who don't agree with their agenda. The young people are getting bored with this stuff. A local newspaper recently reported a truancy bust with over 100 students from local high schools. Lefty baby boomers are the new old farts.
They've been at this since the early 70s at least, so if it's failed since then to produce the desired "progressive" outcome, maybe it never will.
I can still recall the culture shock of transferring from a small, private academy in the deep South to an "open school" in the suburbs of Northern Virginia. It was kind of like moving from Mobile to Berkeley. No walls, students were grouped into "pods," whatever that meant, and the curriculum was designed to help us develop our inner potential or something. I distinctly recall the debate over starting an ROTC group - it was voted down, and the number one reason given was "fear of a police state." Needless to say, I had some catching up to do when I moved south again and started attending a more traditional institution.
Despite my exposure to the "progressive" thinking, however, I am now more or less conservative. Growing up helps. Maybe today's students will be able to think for themselves, to.
Dr. Helen:
Great post---and the two columns above are spot-on regarding the one sidedness of the "political atmosphere" of academe.
But I fear that this post will be seen as troll-bait, and some of our friends from previous postings will reappear and spew anger and vitriol.
I guess the thing that bothers me most is that academic institutions should champion freedom of ideas. Instead, the push a point of view.
Sure, students can be sharp enough to see it. But again, why not champion all points of view, and allow open debate---instead of insulting, throwing pies, and shouting down opponents?
Good post. I hope tht the trolls don't appear!
Oh, one more thing, just emphasizing one-sidedness and hypocrisy.
TIME magazine recently did a puff piece interview with Al Gore. They asked him about "right wing" accusations that he is a hypocrite on carbon emissions because of the amount of jet travel he does.
Gore said it wasn't true: he was "carbon neutral" because of his hybrid car, solar panels, and so on.
Of course, the emissions of carbon dioxide from jet travel are MUCH higher than any other source, on a per-person basis:
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3470/features/7452/the_inconvenient_truth_about_airline_travel.html;jsessionid=C327DC4E0D4A66023433B5D194D62920
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
(do note that the author in the link above was mistaken about the zinc mining).
It's true that Gore has claimed to have paid for "carbon offsets" to reduce his private jet travel (private jet!) emissions...but it turns out that his film's distributor did that.
And I haven't even started on his three giant homes.
So Gore was...ah, not being truthful about how much he personally gives up to "save the planet." Of course, he wants everyone else to give things up.
That means you, no matter what Al Gore does.
But that is the real agenda: the new elite want everyone else to live a particular way...while the celebrities and power brokers continue to live life large.
Of course, TIME didn't pin Mr. Gore on his statement. They were too much in awe of his greatness.
I'm not trying to debate global warming. But I would ask if the folks interviewing Gore at TIME would have let such facile and basically dishonest answers be printed from someone of a political bent with which they disagree.
Hypocrisy, again. I don't trust any politicians, and I am surprised that any so-called "journalist" would do so. But that is the problem under discussion: advocacy instead of reporting, teaching, etc.
Gore said it wasn't true: he was "carbon neutral" because of his hybrid car, solar panels, and so on.
See, I knew there was a real Church of Global Warming. You can even buy indulgences! How cute and medieval.
It appears that ExxonMobil's "sin" is joining with the NSTA to establish a standards-based science curriculum in American schools. Here's the announcement of the California initiative:
"The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and ExxonMobil Foundation announced today the funding of Building a Presence for Science in California-an initiative to bring standards-based science education into every classroom in the state. WestEd, a nonprofit research, development and service agency, will coordinate the project in California in collaboration with the California Department of Education, the California Science Teachers Association, the K-12 Science Alliance and the California Science Project. WestEd and partners will receive $520,000 to implement the new program."
Apparently ExxonMobil Foundation is also funding efforts in 18 other states. I can understand why ExxonMobil might have an interest in students learning science, since many of its employees are trained as engineers, chemists, and similar professions. Maybe Ms. Crow and Ms. David need to go back to school so they can understand this, too.
the only way to have a truly carbon neutral house/life, is by counting every single use of carbon producing energy.
for example, wind turbines, ok but whats the cost in making it..
theres, the energy to dig to ores out of the earth, then the taking them to the smelter, then smelting them and pouring them into molds, then moving those parts to the site, then building it..
all done with trucks ok.. how are those vehicles made.. that all adds to the carbon cost.. so its not as simple as people think..
i agree that we should look after out environment, but the idea of a carbon neutral home. is a pipe dream,
for example the coldplay carbon scheme, where they plant trees to combat the resources spent.. sort of failed some of the trees planted.. died.. curiously producing carbon dioxide.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/30/ngreen30.xml
there is a solution, kill people. we produce more carbon dioxide, so if you kill 1 or 2 billion, the planet would be carbon neutral.. so long as you planted trees as well.. i dont think people would go for that.. would they
I'm deeply worried about the Global Warming issue. I keep hearing conflicting reports from "experts." First I hear that Global Warming causes more hurricanes. Then I hear that they cause less hurricanes (but stronger ones).
To me, climate is one of the most complex systems on the planet. So I am not disturbed that is complex and hard to figure out.
I also have no problem with trying to reduce carbon emissions.
But Al Gore stinks of politics and hypocrisy. And anyone who questions ANY aspect of Global Warming is called nasty names immediately.
Sounds like religion, to me.
So when you try to conserve oil and minimize your personal contribution to the destruction of the atmosphere, maybe you go out and buy a windmill. But the things are a little noisy, so the tree-huggers blast you for that. And every now and then a bird gets his sorry tailfeathers caught in the blades and ends up breathing his last as he falls to the earth. And the bird-watchers want to lynch you for THAT!!
I used to listen to Limbaugh and his ilk just for a laugh, but you know, I'm beginning to think he's right on this one topic anyway: all the enviro-nazis want is to shut down the US economy.
On the other hand, I'm all for conservation: returnable beverage bottles, lower-emissions SUVs, turning the lights out when the room is empty. But dammit, don't even TRY to take away my job!! It's my life, because it's how I feed my family!!
Rusty
This is why Thomas Sowell refers to environuts as "watermelons: green on the outside and red on the inside."
Al Gore is definitely full of it. The "carbon neutral" claim is pure hogwash. Anyone with all the residences, global jet travel, other carbon based fuel transportation he has or uses is not carbon neutral, whatever that means. I wonder how much fuel Crowe and friends burn a year in their endeavors and pleasure travels. Bet it's a hell of a lot more than most of us.
But remember Paul Simon's line, "After all the crap I learned in high school..." My sons, 8th and 12th grade, seem quite aware that a lot of what they're learning is crap. We discuss it and they understand the game they must play to keep their GPA's up. Teaching global warming in high school is one of the surest ways to get young people to scoff at it.
drj, I agree that Exxon/Mobile has a huge stake in helping future scientists and engineers. I'm also certain they would love to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources. The profits would be huge.
Dr. Helen,
Regarding trashy magazine guilt - my wife is one of the smartest people I have ever met, high school valedictorian, ivy league graduate, etc. - but if I steal her People magazine, the claws come out! We are also both fans of Us and the E network.
Scot,
Given your daughter's experience, maybe the whole propaganda thing will backfire--nothing teachers hate more than being ridiculed by their students.
mercurior-
there is a solution, kill people. we produce more carbon dioxide, so if you kill 1 or 2 billion, the planet would be carbon neutral.. so long as you planted trees as well.. i dont think people would go for that.. would they
It sounds crazy, but some elitist groups and radical environmentalists do have a depopulation agenda.
But dammit, don't even TRY to take away my job!! It's my life, because it's how I feed my family!!
On the other hand there are some jobs that shouldn't exist. Jobs built on stealing from, exploiting, or opressing other people, for instance.
And of course excess government jobs funded by taxes are an enormous drag on the economy, making everyone more poor and preventing real job growth.
But that is the real agenda: the new elite want everyone else to live a particular way...while the celebrities and power brokers continue to live life large.
That is EXACTLY it.
I firmly believe that some of these hypocrites would steal from someone less well off than them and give the money to their pet charities - all while living in luxury. It's all about acting like they are good people and trying to look like they are generous with other people's money.
Oh, and what is one of the biggest polluting industries? Surprise,the tv and movie industry.
The film and television industry and associated activities make a larger contribution to air pollution in the five-county Los Angeles region than almost all five other sectors researched, according to a two-year study released Tuesday by the University of California, Los Angeles.
You sure don't here actors, actresses and other entertainers talking about how they need to clean up their act. Like anon. 8:33 says, it's all about acting like they care, etc. when they live in opulent luxury while harassing and taking money from the little guys who made them rich.
Brainwashing has arrived at our school.
My son’s AP Environmental Science teacher announced he is going to show Gore’s movie to his class.
Also, my son has pointed out to me that the class textbook has a definite political slant, such as embracing the premise that dangerous overpopulation is a fact and must be stopped.
I don’t necessarily agree that this kind of brainwashing is harmless to most kids. In our case, the teacher is generally well regarded by students as a “cool, with-it” guy. At best, I think the influence these teachers have is mixed.
One of our biggest concerns for our son is how to counteract this type of irrational thinking that seems to infiltrate high schools and college. He has already learned how going with the flow can help his grade. I wonder if these teachers realize that this a lesson they are inadvertently teaching our kids?
Helen, as a professional, don't you think it incumbent upon you to do some research before labeling Al Gore's film as merely "propaganda"? [And to equate it with the films you mention]. He may be an unplesant personality to you, but most climatologists would agree with him. Look through the scientific literature on this complex issue.
I think you do your readers a diservice to simply confirm and reinforce their prejudices.
"He may be an unplesant personality to you, but most climatologists would agree with him."
I agree, it was 70 degrees F on top of a mountain in Western Maryland last weekend. Global warming is NOT a figment of everyone's imagination. This is serious stuff.
Geesh, guys. ONE DAY of 70 degree weather on a mountain in Maryland does not global warming make. I can remember playing football in my shorts during Christmas vacation in the 60's in Tennessee. I went kayaking, again in Tennessee, on a 75 degree day between Christmas and New Years in the 80's. Also during the 80's, Knoxville reach -24 F one day. All interesting anecdotal evidence but not necessariy indicative of global climitac change.
If you're going to make scientific claims, at least act like you know a little bit about empirical evidence, scientific method, etc. All I really know is a little bit and that's enough to show me that all the hysteria is just that hysteria. Take a geology class and learn how hot the earth used to be, and how cold. All without man's influence, probably dinosaur farts. Cow farts are the greatest threat now.
If this is serious, then Gore, Crowe and the others need to get serioius in their lives and they way they lead them. I have replaced 90% of my incandescent bulbs with flourescent. I drive a 4 cylinder car that gets better than 30mpg, keep my thermostat down, etc. And I don't buy into Gore's propoganda. I do it to help minimize pollution.
Gore and his ilch are power freaks that want to control how you live your life.
I've been scraping ice off my windshield - a new thing for me - here in sunny, semi-arid southern California for a couple of weeks now. News people have been sounding oddly uncomfortable trying to make a story out of very unusually (though not record-breaking) low temperatures over the past month.
Where the heck is my global warming?
(Of course, every time I hear about Gore & Co. visiting somewhere to speechify or wave signs, they always manage to do it during a snowstorm. Go figure.)
From what little I've read, it would seem that climatary changes - little, funny ones as well as big, scary ones - have been going on since basically forever. Some were caused by plant and animal life, others by volcanic activity, still others by killer asteroids. Some have been inconvenient, others have induced major changes in the global environment, and others have killed off every life form bigger than a cockroach.
One result of all these fluxuations was - us.
So I guess my question about global warming is - how do we know it's a bad thing?
Mark 11:04:
I don't care who agrees or disagrees with the film. If the schools want to teach what global warming is fine, but they must also balance it equally with the opposing views for it is not scientific fact at this point. If the schools allow this type of film in, they must also allow others that may not be as politically correct--because they are on equally important topics to many people. The second amendment documentary is factual as much as is Gore's film. However, you can bet that the status quo at our sweet liberal public schools want nothing to do with kids learning about their second amendment rights. It is this hypocrisy that I object to and what the post is about, not whether Gore's film is "scientific fact" or not.
Regarding Al Gore's movie, here is a place to start:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
Now, here is the deal. I am a scientist in biology. I am not a climatologist. MOST of the people arguing about this subject have no training in science, let alone in climate studies!
The scary part is that Al Gore has NO background in science (other than his famous "D" and "C-" in the sciences at Harvard), and yet we believe him utterly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18
Why believe Gore? It is interesting that folks who disagree with the Global Warming issue are painted as frauds or zealots in the pay of industry....while scientists who are openminded about global warming tend not to get funding from granting agencies.
The same thing, really.
We should be reducing our footprint on the environment, yes. But overstating or exaggerating things doesn't help. And I expect the rich and famous to show the way by their own REAL sacrifices, to show us how serious things are.
If Gore, for example, refused air travel and only used electric rail, that would be one thing. If he sold two of this three large homes (or sold all three and bought a zero impact small super efficient home), I would feel differently.
To me, it is the New Aristocracy, once again. They want others to sacrifice, but do not want their own profligate lifestyle to be impacted. After all, we are "little people" and they are "important."
I am reminded of Rosie O'Donnell attacking Tom Selleck, years ago, for owning guns. Then, it was found out that Rosie's bodyguards carry....you guessed it: guns.
She said her life was different. And Rosie is correct: she is important, and we little folk are not.
Al Gore may be right about Global Warming. Al Gore may be wrong (me, I think it is like Nuclear Winter: a piece of the truth, but wildly overstated for political reasons). But he should be showing us how to reduce by his example.
After all, he has the money to show us how.
Rosie is important? When did that happen?
Mark Steyn addressed the decadence of liberals' concerns about global warming in a 2005 interview by noting that, instead of manipulating the environment to maintain a static world, we should remember that humans are mobile and changeable beings:
" ...but I do think it's very curious, this idea to choose to worry about climate change. Even if you look at the so-called problem of rising sea levels that threatens the Maldives, at the present rate that means the Maldives will be under water in the year 2500. Now, there are 350,000 people on the Maldives islands, and I like the Maldives, a very nice place. If it's going to be under water by the year 2500 that's fine, we can move those 350,000 people all the way to the south of France, and being Sunni Muslims they'll fit right in by the year 2500 because everyone else in the south of France will be Sunni Muslims. And this idea that you demonstrate your virtue by worrying about entirely theoretical problems that will have no direct impact on you or your children or your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren, I think is a sign of decadence, to be honest."
In addition, Bjorn Lomberg's Skeptical Environmentalist demonstrated and IMO proved that there are better ways to spend our financial and environmental resources to improve world quality of life (e.g., by utilizing better water, sanitation and other techniques to save lives) than to spend all our resources on speculative global warming theories.
Good points, drj.
I suspect what we are really dealing with is the Left's own version of Puritanism: not about sexual or personal matters (good Lord no!), but instead about things like energy and fuel and the like.
Every single energy solution other than "conservation" is rejected by the Left, repeatedly.
It's become religious. Look at one of the founders of Greenpeace, who now thinks that nuclear power is a genuine solution. Most forms of energy involve burning something, and that makes CO2 (except for hydrogen, yes). So nuclear should be a viable option, in terms of carbon neutrality.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
Yet the howls and vitriol sent his way are amazing.
http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/
So it is ever is for religious heretics, right?
One thing for sure: this all is NOT about science!
You lost me at "I was sitting at the spa yesterday flipping through magazines and came across the December issue of Us Magazine."
How pop culture affects political thinking? Uh-huh.
"NSTA's refusal to let special interest groups hijack the schools is noble"? What--you don't think Exxon is a special interest group? They have no agenda or an unbiased one? Please. Real noble.
Anonymous @ 2:53:
Exxon/Mobil Foundation provided a substantial grant of funds, but the State of California and its education agents get to decide how to spend it. The equivalent here would be if Ms. Crow and Ms. David gave $500,000 of their own money (50,000 DVDs at $10 a pop) to the State of California to educate students about global warming as they see fit. No strings attached.
But Ms. Crow and Ms. David didn't do that, did they? It seems they are the ones with the agenda.
This is what I don't understand.
Anonymous 2:53 writes about Exxon as being eeeevvvvillll profit motivated monsters. So what they spend money on, and what they support is thus suspect.
Larry David and his wife are among the wealthiest people in Hollywood. And THEIR motives are not suspect?
Again, hypocrisy.
You don't want to listen to company fatcats, fine. I understand. I just don't understand why you choose to listen to and take seriously Hollywood parakeets with boatloads of money, no understanding of "real" people, and insular and elitist attitudes.
Strange. I guess it comes back to that evil "R" versus noble "D" probably.
A couple of other interesting links: Al Gore Finds the Truth Inconvenient, false claims, misinformation, etc. in his great movie.
2006 probably will be the coldest out of the last five. This guy's a science professor living in Cambridge, MA, so I'm not sure he can be trusted. :-)
The global warming alarmists don't want debate because they just might be wrong and, then, there goes their power.
Here's a fun game.
Imagine that a politician was claiming that the world was heating up, that the polar ice caps were melting, that we needed to outlaw the internal combustion engine, and that even intermittent cooling patterns were evidence in support of his global warming theory.
Now imagine that the politician's name was George W. Bush.
I'm not sure if global warming is a serious threat or, if it is, how we can fix it. But I know we need reliable information rather than hysteria to make good decisions. This article illustrates why we may not be getting good information from the global warming enthusiasts.
The last two posts are again "right on."
What I think is going on is a superexaggeration of a problem, where that exaggeration is justified, fueled and supported by politics. And politics, as we know, has nothing to do with fact.
Look at Nuclear Winter. The entire Sagan and company scenario, where even a modest exchange of thermonuclear weapons would lead to continent wide drops in temperature (to minus fifty degrees in places) was clearly ridiculous.
But if you said the model was extremely speculative at best, they had you coming and going:
1. "Who are you to disagree with Famous Scientists?"
2. "Aren't you in favor of reducing nuclear weapons?"
So if you urged caution regarding the extremist statements about Nuclear Winter, you were called a stooge of the Reagan administration, a shill for the military industrial complex, and a know-nothing religious fundamentalist dweeb.
Is all this sounding familiar?
Nuclear war WOULD be awful. You don't need to postulate continent wide temperature shifts to support it. That is why I never understood the debate. Although i would say that scientists misleading the public---even if they mean well---is reprehensible.
Heck, Sagan went so far as to claim that Saddam's burning of Kuwaiti oil wells would change the climate in Europe, and throughout the world. Whoops. Didn't happen. Sagan (much missed, RIP) actually did admit to his errors in his last book, but when you compare those statements to Sagan's original claims, it casts doubts on many extreme statements supposedly supported by science.
Especially when you factor in how Sagan simply could not keep his personal politics out of the debate. He supported unilateral disarmament, and the Nuclear Winter theory made his case stronger...so.....
Sagan and his fellows were so invested in this disarmament point of view that they threw their scientific objectivity to the wind. They didn't care about the exaggerations, because of the "higher truth."
That is the current situation with Global Warming, I suspect. Maybe it is happening. But absolutely folks like Gore and others are exaggerating or making things up to support their thesis. Why? They want less of a footprint from humans on the ecosystem. And they know if they tell people to give up their cars because it is the right thing to do, they will get no traction.
Claiming that too many cars will put Manhattan underwater might get people thinking. So the dishonesty and exaggeration is "justified."
I would just remind everyone that nothing is new about this. Paul Ehrlich wrote the egregious POPULATION BOMB in the early 70s. He made all kinds of extremist claims, none of which came true. Ehrlich believed that there are too many people on the planet, so he exaggerated and stretched things to look as bleak as possible (such as food riots, in the US, by the 90s). Yet he is still respected, and is still allowed to trot out his political Puritianism from time to time.
By the way, Ehrlich was and is an extremely important figure in population biology and ecological theory. This does not make him an expert on ANYTHING else.
But since we let a guy who earned a "D" and "C-" in the only science courses he took in college (Al Gore) lecture us on science, why should I be surprised?
Sorry for the rant.
eric blair:
Um, yeah, I didn't say I supported David or Crow or their efforts to get the movie played to high-schoolers, now did I? So, don't talk to me about hypocrisy. You and Helen are the hypocrites, as I see it. I can understand NTSA's decision on the film. But don't act like they're noble, taking Exxon's money. YOU are the ones picking and choosing.
eric blair:
But WHY do Gore and others want less of a "footprint from humans on the ecosystem". Is it because Gore makes billions of dollars in profits per year if he is successful in selling us this cock-a-mamie story? Just curious.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
(Once more, with correct spelling!)
Helen, it might be instructive to do a post or three on projection. Not that you haven't posted endless examples of people projecting all over the place, but perhaps something with a definition and discussion of the phenomenon. You know, something to fend off the (usually anonymous) posters' attempts at exemplifying it further. Might be more ShrinkWrapped's bailiwick, but it would be interesting.
Dear Anonymous 6:00 and perhaps 6:05:
Do I know you? Have I insulted you? Have I ever called "you" a hypocrite? The answer is "no" to all of those questions.
Yet you attempt to insult me. Strange, and uncalled for.
The only point I was making is that it is ironic that we doubt the bona fides of a company because it is a profit making entity, and yet do not apply the same kinds of doubts and questions to what Hollywood parakeets might say. As you will recall if you read my post more carefully, I did say in other language that everyone has a metaphorical axe to grind. If you are going to doubt the motives of Exxon, why aren't you using the same calculus with Laurie David?
Is that an insult to you? I don't see how.
So please attempt to be polite, if you can. As has been stated before, all the nasty language and insults do not advance debate, nor do they change minds.
As for Al Gore, I do openly admit a prejudice. I dislike rich people of privilege who wish other people to curtail or change their lifestyles---at great cost---while not being willing to make the equivalent changes themselves.
Again, if Mr. Gore decided to sell his large and expensive homes (all three of them) and pay large dollars to make a superefficient solar home, I say hurray. He would then be living what he preaches. But it is clear from his statements---hybrid car and such aside---that he fully intends to live his previous lifestyle. Which is fine, except that he insists that we all change ours for "the good of the planet."
This is no different than Barbra Streisand carrying on about how folks should change their lifestyles---including, no kidding, telling folks to hang their laundry outside to dry instead of using electric or gas driers---while watching the sunset from her gigantic Malibu home.
That, sir or ma'am, is hypocrisy, arrogance, and elitism all rolled into one.
All I have stated is that people of this type should attempt to lead by example. And I mean real example. AL Gore claims to use "carbon exemptions" to offset his (private) jet travel---when it is clear that the distributor of his film paid that, not Mr. Gore.
I'm sorry if you like some of these activists. But I certainly didn't insult you.
Unless you are simply trolling, once again.
Well said, Eric Blair.
Thank you, drj. I don't mind it when people disagree with me. In fact, I have learned quite a few things on this blog (including some things from you).
And despite all the macho posturing I sometimes see on the Internet, there is nothing wrong with having polite disagreements.
All I can say is thank God for "Global Warming". Fear of the end of the world has allowed property/casualty insurers, in which I have invested heavily, to charge record premiums this year, and to suffer virtually no catastrophic losses.
Of course we do have 10 days to go and anything could happen, but I am going to take a chance, be optimistic, and celebrate now.
Merry Christmas, or whatever you choose to celebrate around the beginning of winter (or summer if you are below the equator)!
which according to my watch began 4 hours and 41 minutes ago
I'm not worried about this, and here is why.
I was subjected to a number of anti-drug messages during my public school career. That didn't stop me from becoming the habitual pot smoker that I am today!
High school kids will probably talk about it for a day or two...and will promptly forget about it. Given the numbers of kids that still smoke cigarettes (at least most teenagers I see are puffing on them) - they don't seem too concerned about being politically correct!
There was an article in the New York Times on March 13, 2007 written by William J. Broad that suggests some of the things in Al Gore's movie are exaggerations: From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home