Adsense
Defend Al Gore
Please somebody, defend Al Gore for me. What is it that you think he is trying to accomplish with his rhetoric?
“We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization,”
And: “This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.”
And: It “could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force.”
Oil demand: “This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we’re in the front car.”
Polar ice: “Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland.”
Popularity: 2% [?]
28 Comments
Leave a Comment
Adsense
Mike, I would agree, cautiously optimistic is a very good way to put it. Like you, I am hungry for facts and find myself blogging around searching for meaningful discussion as to what everything means. Most sites offer great topics but crazies to talk with. I will look for good conversation regardless of political persuasion. I prefer to have my point of view challenged, because my perspective needs to be constantly refreshed.
You are correct in my DVD analogy. I meant to make a point about how quickly technology can change and therefore the paradigm.
I like the fact that politicians use Film to further their point of view. I am pretty sure that most people take a politician’s film with a grain of salt. As for Michael Moore, he may be extreme, and he IS a filmmaker, and I only see him speaking out for the quiet little guy (ie. auto workers, uninsured, people without guns, etc.). I don’t have much bad to say about Michael Moore because he is making people aware of issues. I don’t always agree with him, but I will always watch his movie/docs. I like to be aware of issues, but that does not mean I want to watch Expelled because I think Ben Stein can teach me something new about Creationism. Ha Ha! Film is powerful, as an opinion-maker, unfortunately.
It’s an interesting point about using film. I personally love the medium. It has so many upsides and applications. It also has a few problems. I don’t want to get into any lengthy debates about Michel Moore (although I will if cornered), but suffice it to say, that while I can often understand his agenda,(standing up for the little guy is a noble cause), to me, he does a disservice to film. I don’t subscribe to the same by-any-means-necessary ethic Moore does. He abuses context, subverts his audience and plays fast and loose with facts to suit his cause. He abuses artistic license and hides behind the fact that he’s first an entertainer. I recognize he has an agenda and that’s fine. I’m just fearful of a powerful tool, like film, when it’s misused. If I didn’t have a strong grasp of actual facts, I might actually form an opinion based on a Michael Moore movie. The idea that lots of people do makes me shiver.
A similar situation occurred with a co-worker a couple of years ago. We were discussing that weeks SNL episode. I’m a big fan of SNL, in particular of the Weekend Update segment (for obvious reasons). Anyway, it was during the uproar over Donald Rumsfeld. They made a joke about how to choose a good Secretary of Defense. The punchline was something along the lines of “maybe if we chose someone who actually had experience in the military”. My co-worker rightly took this to mean that Donald Rumsfeld was purely a civilian and that it would make more sense to have a military man in that position. I informed him that Donald Rumsfeld may be many things, but he’s not a “civilian”. He was in the Navy, flew fighter pilots and had already been Secretary of Defense once before, even serving in the reserves for some 15 years or thereabouts. My co-worker was genuinely surprised that SNL would outright mislead it’s audience simply to get a laugh. I said they may not have been misleading, SNL writers are not generally known for their accurate understanding of historical fact. Jokes are easier to pull off when the facts are irrelevant. I just think they’re intellectually lazy. I mean c’mon, there are a million things you could lampoon someone like Rumsfeld on.
Anyway, short story long, if a viewer doesn’t have command of the facts, they are easily led astray and I think Michael Moore intentionally takes advantage of that.
Needless to say, so does Rush Limbaugh.
Oh, and for the record, I wouldn’t/haven’t seen the Ben Stein movie either.
Very true, Mike. Ultimately, one show of SNL or one Michael Moore movie/doc is not going to formulate 100% of anyone’s opinion. People put parodies and docs in context, whether they realize it or not. I don’t think anybody really came away from the SNL Weekend Update you mentioned(aside from your coworker) without testing that new knowledge either on a coworker or another news segment. Those of us who are lazy, would, as you stated, be inclined to file the Rumsfeld/civilian tidbit to use at the next holiday party. However, when I hear “facts” from docs, comedy shows, or now even news shows themselves, I usually have further questions that beg me to look further. This is not always the case, but at the same time I don’t spew random “facts” from a comedy show. I might have been the coworker who would ask you “Was Rumsfeld a civilian?” harmlessly averting an intellectually arrogant situation. In any case, other people aren’t as informed as me and you, but it is not our job to inform them, but rather our job is to help them ask more questions. Hopefully, ignorance is replaced by curiosity.
“Hopefully, ignorance is replaced by curiosity.”
I like that saying!
“People put parodies and docs in context, whether they realize it or not.”
I certainly hope so.
Isn’t that the correct way do quote a quote?
@Niki
?