[/quote]
Speaking of the Dude, did anyone see Ghost Rider this weekend? A couple of friends dragged me and Sam Elliott narrates part of the movie... it's just like Lebowski.
Anyways, carry on...
Police, Genesis, Foo Fighters at Live Earth Concert 7/7/07
44 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by blueseattle on 20 Feb 2007 02:14
[quote="GinaSuperCat"]three over four...you had me at quoting the Dude...brilliant [/quote]
Speaking of the Dude, did anyone see Ghost Rider this weekend? A couple of friends dragged me and Sam Elliott narrates part of the movie... it's just like Lebowski.
Anyways, carry on...
[/quote]
Speaking of the Dude, did anyone see Ghost Rider this weekend? A couple of friends dragged me and Sam Elliott narrates part of the movie... it's just like Lebowski.
Anyways, carry on...
-
blueseattle - Posts: 459
- Joined: 05 Jan 2007 04:32
- Location: Miami, FL
by mudspoke on 20 Feb 2007 03:12
"From Merriam-Webster:
propaganda
-- the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"
Very interesting that you chose this as one of your definitions. I used to teach a college class in Consumer Psychology and used the exact same definition to define propaganda. Of course, I also used the exact same definition to define education. The point of that part of the lecture is that propaganda and education are pretty darn similar -- it simply depends on your perspective.
So, I must disagree with your statement that ""Propaganda is exactly what it is." Because clearly, it isn't. It is in the eye of the beholder.
As far as Art goes, I think that is why several Police songs are so interesting. I remember talking with my friends about the meaning of the song, "Walking In Your Footsteps". I made a case that it could be warning that we were about to destroy ourselves, while my friends were arguing that we were more advanced and thus wouldn't make the same mistake. So, I don't understand how Art can be propoganda when different people interpret it differently. I mean, if it's propaganda, shouldn't the intention be crystal clear?
propaganda
-- the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"
Very interesting that you chose this as one of your definitions. I used to teach a college class in Consumer Psychology and used the exact same definition to define propaganda. Of course, I also used the exact same definition to define education. The point of that part of the lecture is that propaganda and education are pretty darn similar -- it simply depends on your perspective.
So, I must disagree with your statement that ""Propaganda is exactly what it is." Because clearly, it isn't. It is in the eye of the beholder.
As far as Art goes, I think that is why several Police songs are so interesting. I remember talking with my friends about the meaning of the song, "Walking In Your Footsteps". I made a case that it could be warning that we were about to destroy ourselves, while my friends were arguing that we were more advanced and thus wouldn't make the same mistake. So, I don't understand how Art can be propoganda when different people interpret it differently. I mean, if it's propaganda, shouldn't the intention be crystal clear?
Mudspoke
"If you don't like my arrogance you can suck my socks."
"If you don't like my arrogance you can suck my socks."
- mudspoke
- Posts: 70
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 04:30
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
by Wait and See on 20 Feb 2007 05:00
[quote="ceebab"]Ok, first of all, by your own definition both Revolution and Who Needs the Peace Corps would be propaganda. So what you're really saying is you don't like anyone [b]who doesn't agree with you[/b] to use politics in their art.
-------
No, what I was saying is if it has to be politics or social commentary, I prefer songs that go against the grain, because they're rare.
---------
Secondly, the marriage of politics and art is SO not a boomer thing. Art and politics have been mixed since the beginning of art. Both Mayan and Egyptian sculpture, architecture and art are all about politics, politicians, and the power structure. That is their main focus, in fact. In ancient Greece there was a playwrite named Aristophanes who gives us our first known example of political satire in his plays. I could keep going, but I hope you get the point.
---------
Sure, but in modern terms, because of the baby boom generation, it's gotten totally out of whack. It seems every artist in every field of the entertainment industry is constantly spouting their political opinions, and they're all the same, in lock step, to the point where they basically operate as a single unified political party. The result is that their art ends up looking like a sham-- just a meaningless means of amassing an audience and raising funds to go ram their politics down everyone's throat.
--------
Art, all art, is a way of expressing the artists' thoughts, hopes, and dreams. Sometimes those are political, sometimes they aren't. If you don't like someone's politics, then fine, but to say they don't have a right to express it in their art and ask others to think about it is to not understand the fundamental being of Art in any form.
--------
I disagree. Not that they have a right to say what they want, which they clearly do, but that it does not compromise their credibility as artists, which it absolutely does.
-------
No, what I was saying is if it has to be politics or social commentary, I prefer songs that go against the grain, because they're rare.
---------
Secondly, the marriage of politics and art is SO not a boomer thing. Art and politics have been mixed since the beginning of art. Both Mayan and Egyptian sculpture, architecture and art are all about politics, politicians, and the power structure. That is their main focus, in fact. In ancient Greece there was a playwrite named Aristophanes who gives us our first known example of political satire in his plays. I could keep going, but I hope you get the point.
---------
Sure, but in modern terms, because of the baby boom generation, it's gotten totally out of whack. It seems every artist in every field of the entertainment industry is constantly spouting their political opinions, and they're all the same, in lock step, to the point where they basically operate as a single unified political party. The result is that their art ends up looking like a sham-- just a meaningless means of amassing an audience and raising funds to go ram their politics down everyone's throat.
--------
Art, all art, is a way of expressing the artists' thoughts, hopes, and dreams. Sometimes those are political, sometimes they aren't. If you don't like someone's politics, then fine, but to say they don't have a right to express it in their art and ask others to think about it is to not understand the fundamental being of Art in any form.
--------
I disagree. Not that they have a right to say what they want, which they clearly do, but that it does not compromise their credibility as artists, which it absolutely does.
- Wait and See
- Posts: 273
- Joined: 11 Feb 2007 02:37
by Wait and See on 20 Feb 2007 05:18
propaganda
-- the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"
Very interesting that you chose this as one of your definitions. I used to teach a college class in Consumer Psychology and used the exact same definition to define propaganda. Of course, I also used the exact same definition to define education. The point of that part of the lecture is that propaganda and education are pretty darn similar -- it simply depends on your perspective.
-----------
The purpose of education is to help or injure an institution, a cause, or a person? I'm not surprised you would think that way, but I'm surprised you would argue it publicly.
---------
So, I must disagree with your statement that ""Propaganda is exactly what it is." Because clearly, it isn't. It is in the eye of the beholder.
As far as Art goes, I think that is why several Police songs are so interesting. I remember talking with my friends about the meaning of the song, "Walking In Your Footsteps". I made a case that it could be warning that we were about to destroy ourselves, while my friends were arguing that we were more advanced and thus wouldn't make the same mistake. So, I don't understand how Art can be propoganda when different people interpret it differently. I mean, if it's propaganda, shouldn't the intention be crystal clear?
---------
As you said, and as I said earlier, it is in the eye of the beholder to an extent. "Walking in your footsteps" is a good example (although it's one of their worst songs IMO), in the sense that it is clearly social commentary, but it is far less clear that it is designed to help a particular political cause, aside from a passing mention of nuclear weapons, which everyone realizes could theoretically be a threat to human existence.
As far as the Police's "political" songs go, they don't bother me too much personally because they're pretty vague and not overly radical. What irritates me more about them is their lecturing tone-- as if Sting is qualified to go out and tell people how they ought to think.
This event, however, irritates me immensely, because here you have this apparently massive lineup of huge stars throwing in their lot with a Party politician, gladly handing over their reputation and entire body of work to be used as a bait and switch on apathetic music fans, all for the purpose of supporting a nakedly political agenda.
It's a sign of how things have gone downhill, that the original LiveAid was a perfectly legitimate charity effort to fight hunger, but "Live8" was an attempt to influence politicians. Now we have yet another event, and this time it is all a setup for a career partisan politician to propagandize the world on a highly controversial and contentious issue. I am totally behind artists when they put their fame and money behind a worthy charity. When they start trying to influence politicians, or even worse go and flack for them like this event does for Al Gore, I think it taints everything they do and have done as artists.
-- the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"
Very interesting that you chose this as one of your definitions. I used to teach a college class in Consumer Psychology and used the exact same definition to define propaganda. Of course, I also used the exact same definition to define education. The point of that part of the lecture is that propaganda and education are pretty darn similar -- it simply depends on your perspective.
-----------
The purpose of education is to help or injure an institution, a cause, or a person? I'm not surprised you would think that way, but I'm surprised you would argue it publicly.
---------
So, I must disagree with your statement that ""Propaganda is exactly what it is." Because clearly, it isn't. It is in the eye of the beholder.
As far as Art goes, I think that is why several Police songs are so interesting. I remember talking with my friends about the meaning of the song, "Walking In Your Footsteps". I made a case that it could be warning that we were about to destroy ourselves, while my friends were arguing that we were more advanced and thus wouldn't make the same mistake. So, I don't understand how Art can be propoganda when different people interpret it differently. I mean, if it's propaganda, shouldn't the intention be crystal clear?
---------
As you said, and as I said earlier, it is in the eye of the beholder to an extent. "Walking in your footsteps" is a good example (although it's one of their worst songs IMO), in the sense that it is clearly social commentary, but it is far less clear that it is designed to help a particular political cause, aside from a passing mention of nuclear weapons, which everyone realizes could theoretically be a threat to human existence.
As far as the Police's "political" songs go, they don't bother me too much personally because they're pretty vague and not overly radical. What irritates me more about them is their lecturing tone-- as if Sting is qualified to go out and tell people how they ought to think.
This event, however, irritates me immensely, because here you have this apparently massive lineup of huge stars throwing in their lot with a Party politician, gladly handing over their reputation and entire body of work to be used as a bait and switch on apathetic music fans, all for the purpose of supporting a nakedly political agenda.
It's a sign of how things have gone downhill, that the original LiveAid was a perfectly legitimate charity effort to fight hunger, but "Live8" was an attempt to influence politicians. Now we have yet another event, and this time it is all a setup for a career partisan politician to propagandize the world on a highly controversial and contentious issue. I am totally behind artists when they put their fame and money behind a worthy charity. When they start trying to influence politicians, or even worse go and flack for them like this event does for Al Gore, I think it taints everything they do and have done as artists.
- Wait and See
- Posts: 273
- Joined: 11 Feb 2007 02:37
by GinaSuperCat on 20 Feb 2007 06:15
I'm not sure how distribution and maintnance of water resources is a-ok but supporting environmental regulation to reduce global warming is markedly political and propaganda. Either they both are political or, on the other hand, one is a type of politics you likey and the other no likey.
The only major "debate" about whether global warming is taking place is by innocuous-sounding "indenpendent" research groups with industry funding invested in battling down regulations that cut into profits. The only "debate" is a manufactured one.
Is the difference that one is headed by a once-politician invested in partisan politics, and one by a non-governmental organization? Non-governmental organizations are political entities, just not statist ones. The infrastructural problems of water allocation in an inherently political problem--a natural resource with controlling interests, oftentimes involved heavily in political turmoil and so forth. The nature of these problems are not of a different order--climate change and water resources are both political problems...I am fortunate, I know this...but having lived in California for a good part of my life I know water is as political as anything else...and I don't even begin to understand how such a problem would operate in areas targeted by WaterAid...I commend these efforts. Water is as controversial as climate change is non-controversial...
That leaves the question that is the major debate concerning climate change--what should be done? This is, like resources such as water, a political question...
My guess is that the artists who signed on for this are in support that, yes, climate change is a problem, and, yes, something needs to be done. I don't see these artists as simplitic 'dupes' buying into something they don't understand. Yes Al Gore is not a neutral character--but, my point is, who is? Many may not like him but he has taken this issue seriously for a long-while and I assume that those who join to support his message are, as simple as it sounds, in support of his message--which is not a campaign for office, but a message about the dangers of global warming and what needs to be done...
The only major "debate" about whether global warming is taking place is by innocuous-sounding "indenpendent" research groups with industry funding invested in battling down regulations that cut into profits. The only "debate" is a manufactured one.
Is the difference that one is headed by a once-politician invested in partisan politics, and one by a non-governmental organization? Non-governmental organizations are political entities, just not statist ones. The infrastructural problems of water allocation in an inherently political problem--a natural resource with controlling interests, oftentimes involved heavily in political turmoil and so forth. The nature of these problems are not of a different order--climate change and water resources are both political problems...I am fortunate, I know this...but having lived in California for a good part of my life I know water is as political as anything else...and I don't even begin to understand how such a problem would operate in areas targeted by WaterAid...I commend these efforts. Water is as controversial as climate change is non-controversial...
That leaves the question that is the major debate concerning climate change--what should be done? This is, like resources such as water, a political question...
My guess is that the artists who signed on for this are in support that, yes, climate change is a problem, and, yes, something needs to be done. I don't see these artists as simplitic 'dupes' buying into something they don't understand. Yes Al Gore is not a neutral character--but, my point is, who is? Many may not like him but he has taken this issue seriously for a long-while and I assume that those who join to support his message are, as simple as it sounds, in support of his message--which is not a campaign for office, but a message about the dangers of global warming and what needs to be done...
MMMMEEEEEOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!
-
GinaSuperCat - Posts: 3174
- Joined: 31 Jan 2007 22:59
- Location: President: Special Anthony Fan Club
by Wait and See on 20 Feb 2007 07:57
Do you not understand the difference between charity and lobbying? Between private action and government action?
I'll admit I don't know the details of how Water Aid operates, but there are many groups associated with those efforts-- and from what I know of them, they are not involved with governments at all, except perhaps in getting permission to do what they primarily do, which is to go through village by village and help people dig wells.
As for global warming, there are three questions-- the question of whether there has been ongoing climate change in recent years, the question of whether it is caused by human activity, and the question of whether anything can actually be done to reverse it.
On the first question, there is little debate. Clearly, the Earth's climate has undergone cyclical changes throughout time, and most recently we are in a warming cycle. On the second question, there is no scientifically proven fact. There is simply the aggregate "opinion" of scientists that greenhouse gasses must be the cause, because they haven't come up with anything else. There is ample suggestion that global warming could (surprise, surprise) be the result of changes in solar activity, but that never gets reported in the media. On the last question, the UN recently put out a big report, signed off on by many nations, that claims that global warming is man made, but it's too late to do anything about it-- no matter how many limits are put on, there is already too much in the atmosphere for it to be stopped.
In other words, this whole thing is nothing but an ego trip for Al Gore, and is otherwise utterly meaningless. If Gore (foolishly) decides to run for president again, maybe some of these "artists" will write nice little campaign jingles for him. That seems to be where it's headed.
I'll admit I don't know the details of how Water Aid operates, but there are many groups associated with those efforts-- and from what I know of them, they are not involved with governments at all, except perhaps in getting permission to do what they primarily do, which is to go through village by village and help people dig wells.
As for global warming, there are three questions-- the question of whether there has been ongoing climate change in recent years, the question of whether it is caused by human activity, and the question of whether anything can actually be done to reverse it.
On the first question, there is little debate. Clearly, the Earth's climate has undergone cyclical changes throughout time, and most recently we are in a warming cycle. On the second question, there is no scientifically proven fact. There is simply the aggregate "opinion" of scientists that greenhouse gasses must be the cause, because they haven't come up with anything else. There is ample suggestion that global warming could (surprise, surprise) be the result of changes in solar activity, but that never gets reported in the media. On the last question, the UN recently put out a big report, signed off on by many nations, that claims that global warming is man made, but it's too late to do anything about it-- no matter how many limits are put on, there is already too much in the atmosphere for it to be stopped.
In other words, this whole thing is nothing but an ego trip for Al Gore, and is otherwise utterly meaningless. If Gore (foolishly) decides to run for president again, maybe some of these "artists" will write nice little campaign jingles for him. That seems to be where it's headed.
- Wait and See
- Posts: 273
- Joined: 11 Feb 2007 02:37
by GinaSuperCat on 20 Feb 2007 18:46
I clearly understand the difference--as a difference of who--you just don't like one of the "who"--I get it...you’re not alone in that regard…but the distinction that one is political and the other is not valid...
Water Aid (UK) involves community action that includes lobbying lawmakers etc., and its actions are political, too...several elements of infrastructure, access, etc. can only be alleviated through such means. If you think “private” and “government” are entirely separate entities, you are not as cynical as you purport to be—‘private’ interests have substantial influence…
On the other hand, governments have large humanitarian assistance programs, as well...so just because its private does not mean its not political, just because its governmental does not mean its not charitable…just because something is a non governmental action does not make it non-political...I'm my experience with several non-governmental organizations, they are dedicatedly political...unquestionably so and committed, as one would have to be to dedicate time, effort, solutions to such pressing problems.
The warming debate is really only about what can be done...if we have passed the point of irreversability that does not mean we should continue industrial emissions (one of the biggest contributors) full steam ahead...unfortunately the only way to regulate emissions etc. is through regulations…the major opponent of regulations, especially in developing areas is global industries…nongovernmental action is seriously limited against a problem that seems to necessitate regulations on how much pollution is allowable for a sustainable planet.
Al Gore rerunning? I don’t think so--anything is possible but he hasn't done anything to put himself on the roster:) Is he Bob Geldof (Sir, that is)…no…but this has always been Gore’s big issue…
Anyway, anyone in attendance at Live8 or viewing it televised has the ability to be as critically thoughtful, suspicious, and engaged as you are, thus there is no need to decry the event as propaganda fearing that we will all be blindly duped by the persuasion there because we are all star struck that the Police, etc. are there. I’m not a big fan of the assumptions that we are all sheep (bah) that are susceptible to anything that we are fed (bleat). Any viewer can use the same analytical skills you are using to assess the event to evaluate the message the event tries to persuade them about—one does not have to accept one solution or even any of the solutions that may be presented—getting people to think about the issue, even to disagree, can be good!
Ok, putting my “political debate” pen and paper away and gonna go beat on the skins a bit more—I have work on getting my kick drum foot to cooperate with me
Water Aid (UK) involves community action that includes lobbying lawmakers etc., and its actions are political, too...several elements of infrastructure, access, etc. can only be alleviated through such means. If you think “private” and “government” are entirely separate entities, you are not as cynical as you purport to be—‘private’ interests have substantial influence…
On the other hand, governments have large humanitarian assistance programs, as well...so just because its private does not mean its not political, just because its governmental does not mean its not charitable…just because something is a non governmental action does not make it non-political...I'm my experience with several non-governmental organizations, they are dedicatedly political...unquestionably so and committed, as one would have to be to dedicate time, effort, solutions to such pressing problems.
The warming debate is really only about what can be done...if we have passed the point of irreversability that does not mean we should continue industrial emissions (one of the biggest contributors) full steam ahead...unfortunately the only way to regulate emissions etc. is through regulations…the major opponent of regulations, especially in developing areas is global industries…nongovernmental action is seriously limited against a problem that seems to necessitate regulations on how much pollution is allowable for a sustainable planet.
Al Gore rerunning? I don’t think so--anything is possible but he hasn't done anything to put himself on the roster:) Is he Bob Geldof (Sir, that is)…no…but this has always been Gore’s big issue…
Anyway, anyone in attendance at Live8 or viewing it televised has the ability to be as critically thoughtful, suspicious, and engaged as you are, thus there is no need to decry the event as propaganda fearing that we will all be blindly duped by the persuasion there because we are all star struck that the Police, etc. are there. I’m not a big fan of the assumptions that we are all sheep (bah) that are susceptible to anything that we are fed (bleat). Any viewer can use the same analytical skills you are using to assess the event to evaluate the message the event tries to persuade them about—one does not have to accept one solution or even any of the solutions that may be presented—getting people to think about the issue, even to disagree, can be good!
Ok, putting my “political debate” pen and paper away and gonna go beat on the skins a bit more—I have work on getting my kick drum foot to cooperate with me
MMMMEEEEEOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!
-
GinaSuperCat - Posts: 3174
- Joined: 31 Jan 2007 22:59
- Location: President: Special Anthony Fan Club
by Divemistress of the Dark on 20 Feb 2007 18:57
[quote]On the first question, there is little debate. Clearly, the Earth's climate has undergone cyclical changes throughout time, and most recently we are in a warming cycle. On the second question, there is no scientifically proven fact. There is simply the aggregate "opinion" of scientists that greenhouse gasses must be the cause, because they haven't come up with anything else. There is ample suggestion that global warming could (surprise, surprise) be the result of changes in solar activity, but that never gets reported in the media. [/quote]
This is oil company propaganda put forward in order to avoid having onerous government regulations put on them and in order to justify continuing to pollute the planet's air, water and soil. I defy you to find even one respected scientific group that isn't being paid by Exxon or similar who reports such a thing.
Even if it were true, there are zero scientists - even the ones paid by Exxon - who don't agree that human activity is contributing to warming. So why not do everything we can to reduce the impact of human activity on the warming climate? Simple - the greed of oil companies and the folks currently running the U.S. government, who don't give a crap about the cares of ordinary folks and are motivated solely by the power of the purse. Where were they while New Orleans drowned? Were Al Gore President in August of 2005, he'd have been down there with a bucket, pure and simple. Thanks to electoral shenanigans you don't often see outside a banana republic, Al Gore was not the President and that city is in a condition that should not ever be allowed to exist in the most powerful country in the world.
I hope and pray Chirac's threat to organize the E.U. with other countries to force the U.S. to agree to an international accord on climate change comes to pass. Because I have no faith in the integrity of U.S. elections at the moment, and there's not much chance we're going to elect anyone any time soon who will face this crisis head-on. I do have to wonder if the suits in Washington will wake up once the Ellipse starts to sink beneath the Atlantic, which could well happen sometime very soon on a planet near you.
</rant>
This is oil company propaganda put forward in order to avoid having onerous government regulations put on them and in order to justify continuing to pollute the planet's air, water and soil. I defy you to find even one respected scientific group that isn't being paid by Exxon or similar who reports such a thing.
Even if it were true, there are zero scientists - even the ones paid by Exxon - who don't agree that human activity is contributing to warming. So why not do everything we can to reduce the impact of human activity on the warming climate? Simple - the greed of oil companies and the folks currently running the U.S. government, who don't give a crap about the cares of ordinary folks and are motivated solely by the power of the purse. Where were they while New Orleans drowned? Were Al Gore President in August of 2005, he'd have been down there with a bucket, pure and simple. Thanks to electoral shenanigans you don't often see outside a banana republic, Al Gore was not the President and that city is in a condition that should not ever be allowed to exist in the most powerful country in the world.
I hope and pray Chirac's threat to organize the E.U. with other countries to force the U.S. to agree to an international accord on climate change comes to pass. Because I have no faith in the integrity of U.S. elections at the moment, and there's not much chance we're going to elect anyone any time soon who will face this crisis head-on. I do have to wonder if the suits in Washington will wake up once the Ellipse starts to sink beneath the Atlantic, which could well happen sometime very soon on a planet near you.
</rant>
On Google - site:stewartcopeland.net "your keyword here" - thanks DM!!
-
Divemistress of the Dark - Posts: 7873
- Joined: 12 Jul 2006 14:10
- Location: Nashville, TN
by Three over Four on 20 Feb 2007 20:38
[quote]On the first question, there is little debate. Clearly, the Earth's climate has undergone cyclical changes throughout time, and most recently we are in a warming cycle. On the second question, there is no scientifically proven fact. There is simply the aggregate "opinion" of scientists that greenhouse gasses must be the cause, because they haven't come up with anything else. There is ample suggestion that global warming could (surprise, surprise) be the result of changes in solar activity, but that never gets reported in the media. On the last question, the UN recently put out a big report, signed off on by many nations, that claims that global warming is man made, but it's too late to do anything about it-- no matter how many limits are put on, there is already too much in the atmosphere for it to be stopped.[/quote]
I have heard the same thing in regards to global warming *possibly* being caused by increased solar activity, but that is even *less* of a scientifically proven fact than warming being caused by the activity of man. In fact, when 90% of the worlds scientists agree that man is playing a part in the warming that's going on, it is rather arrogant, if not downright suicidal, to just wash your hands of it and do nothing simply because it might not be caused by man, and/or it's too late. Replace some bulbs with LED's or CFL's, insulate your water heater & set it to 120°, turn down your thermostat when you're not at home. It doesn't take much effort to bring about positive change....and in fact, will save you $$ in the long run after some initial cost.
Also, this thing is much bigger than Al Gore.....come on man, he just happens to be the loudest voice right now, but this is WAY too big to be just *his* baby.
I have heard the same thing in regards to global warming *possibly* being caused by increased solar activity, but that is even *less* of a scientifically proven fact than warming being caused by the activity of man. In fact, when 90% of the worlds scientists agree that man is playing a part in the warming that's going on, it is rather arrogant, if not downright suicidal, to just wash your hands of it and do nothing simply because it might not be caused by man, and/or it's too late. Replace some bulbs with LED's or CFL's, insulate your water heater & set it to 120°, turn down your thermostat when you're not at home. It doesn't take much effort to bring about positive change....and in fact, will save you $$ in the long run after some initial cost.
Also, this thing is much bigger than Al Gore.....come on man, he just happens to be the loudest voice right now, but this is WAY too big to be just *his* baby.
- Three over Four
- Posts: 708
- Joined: 01 Nov 2006 04:03
- Location: Portland, Oregon USA
by Wait and See on 21 Feb 2007 02:02
[quote="Divemistress of the Dark"]This is oil company propaganda put forward in order to avoid having onerous government regulations put on them and in order to justify continuing to pollute the planet's air, water and soil. I defy you to find even one respected scientific group that isn't being paid by Exxon or similar who reports such a thing.
Even if it were true, there are zero scientists - even the ones paid by Exxon - who don't agree that human activity is contributing to warming. So why not do everything we can to reduce the impact of human activity on the warming climate? Simple - the greed of oil companies and the folks currently running the U.S. government, who don't give a crap about the cares of ordinary folks and are motivated solely by the power of the purse. Where were they while New Orleans drowned? Were Al Gore President in August of 2005, he'd have been down there with a bucket, pure and simple. Thanks to electoral shenanigans you don't often see outside a banana republic, Al Gore was not the President and that city is in a condition that should not ever be allowed to exist in the most powerful country in the world.
I hope and pray Chirac's threat to organize the E.U. with other countries to force the U.S. to agree to an international accord on climate change comes to pass. Because I have no faith in the integrity of U.S. elections at the moment, and there's not much chance we're going to elect anyone any time soon who will face this crisis head-on. I do have to wonder if the suits in Washington will wake up once the Ellipse starts to sink beneath the Atlantic, which could well happen sometime very soon on a planet near you.
</rant>[/quote]
You're a fascist. No offense.
Even if it were true, there are zero scientists - even the ones paid by Exxon - who don't agree that human activity is contributing to warming. So why not do everything we can to reduce the impact of human activity on the warming climate? Simple - the greed of oil companies and the folks currently running the U.S. government, who don't give a crap about the cares of ordinary folks and are motivated solely by the power of the purse. Where were they while New Orleans drowned? Were Al Gore President in August of 2005, he'd have been down there with a bucket, pure and simple. Thanks to electoral shenanigans you don't often see outside a banana republic, Al Gore was not the President and that city is in a condition that should not ever be allowed to exist in the most powerful country in the world.
I hope and pray Chirac's threat to organize the E.U. with other countries to force the U.S. to agree to an international accord on climate change comes to pass. Because I have no faith in the integrity of U.S. elections at the moment, and there's not much chance we're going to elect anyone any time soon who will face this crisis head-on. I do have to wonder if the suits in Washington will wake up once the Ellipse starts to sink beneath the Atlantic, which could well happen sometime very soon on a planet near you.
</rant>[/quote]
You're a fascist. No offense.
- Wait and See
- Posts: 273
- Joined: 11 Feb 2007 02:37
by mudspoke on 21 Feb 2007 04:22
"The purpose of education is to help or injure an institution, a cause, or a person? I'm not surprised you would think that way, but I'm surprised you would argue it publicly."
First of all, if you would allow yourself an open mind, you might be able to see that education can be seen as little more than advancing an institution, cause, or person. What, you don't think our history books are advancing an institution?
Look, either have a serious discussion or go somewhere else. We can agree to disagree, but calling someone a fascist isn't welcome on this board. No offense.
First of all, if you would allow yourself an open mind, you might be able to see that education can be seen as little more than advancing an institution, cause, or person. What, you don't think our history books are advancing an institution?
Look, either have a serious discussion or go somewhere else. We can agree to disagree, but calling someone a fascist isn't welcome on this board. No offense.
Mudspoke
"If you don't like my arrogance you can suck my socks."
"If you don't like my arrogance you can suck my socks."
- mudspoke
- Posts: 70
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 04:30
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
by Three over Four on 21 Feb 2007 06:12
Don't make me start singing the theme to Diff'rent Strokes AGAIN!! With an unintelligent post like that W&S I am left with no choice but to ignore you starting.....now. Take your propaganda elsewhere please.
- Three over Four
- Posts: 708
- Joined: 01 Nov 2006 04:03
- Location: Portland, Oregon USA
by Divemistress of the Dark on 21 Feb 2007 07:37
Someone smarter than I am once said patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I would tend to agree, only I'd throw in flat-earth scientific revisionism as well.
No facts or cites to back up your claim - only name-calling...after YOU started this whole darn thing with a bunch of baseless attacks on a concert being played by the sponsor of this website, and on someone else who's rather near and dear to my heart, personally, being something of a neighbor of mine and all.
Nothing to see here, folks...move along...
No facts or cites to back up your claim - only name-calling...after YOU started this whole darn thing with a bunch of baseless attacks on a concert being played by the sponsor of this website, and on someone else who's rather near and dear to my heart, personally, being something of a neighbor of mine and all.
Nothing to see here, folks...move along...
On Google - site:stewartcopeland.net "your keyword here" - thanks DM!!
-
Divemistress of the Dark - Posts: 7873
- Joined: 12 Jul 2006 14:10
- Location: Nashville, TN
by Wait and See on 24 Feb 2007 19:26
Just to clarify my general position RE: music and politics...
People these days are saturated with politics. There are millions of ways to get news 24/7, from newspapers, to TV, to radio, to the internet. People are full to the gills with it.
Personally, when I listen to music, I do it to get away from that crap, not to hear more of it, and I think a lot of people feel that way. To me, music has always been something that (when done right) transcends the mundane, petty aspects of life and society, and in some way deals with things on a deeper level. Whenever an artist brings up politics, it's like throwing cold water on you and telling you to eat your vegetables. That's not what I'm there for. I get it elsewhere, constantly, whether I like it or not.
The songs that are the most effective and meaningful are ones that come from a personal perspective, having to do with human emotions and psychology. When you try to bring in mass scale, outward-focused issues, there is a degree to which the music becomes cold, impersonal and divisive, which is the opposite of what it seems to me music ought to be.
That's my opinion, but I want to make it clear that I was in no way bashing Stewart or the Police. They can and will do whatever they want, and I'm sure they have good intentions. I'm just sick of politics invading every single aspect of life. As they saying goes, opinions are like a-holes...everybody has one and they all stink...
People these days are saturated with politics. There are millions of ways to get news 24/7, from newspapers, to TV, to radio, to the internet. People are full to the gills with it.
Personally, when I listen to music, I do it to get away from that crap, not to hear more of it, and I think a lot of people feel that way. To me, music has always been something that (when done right) transcends the mundane, petty aspects of life and society, and in some way deals with things on a deeper level. Whenever an artist brings up politics, it's like throwing cold water on you and telling you to eat your vegetables. That's not what I'm there for. I get it elsewhere, constantly, whether I like it or not.
The songs that are the most effective and meaningful are ones that come from a personal perspective, having to do with human emotions and psychology. When you try to bring in mass scale, outward-focused issues, there is a degree to which the music becomes cold, impersonal and divisive, which is the opposite of what it seems to me music ought to be.
That's my opinion, but I want to make it clear that I was in no way bashing Stewart or the Police. They can and will do whatever they want, and I'm sure they have good intentions. I'm just sick of politics invading every single aspect of life. As they saying goes, opinions are like a-holes...everybody has one and they all stink...
- Wait and See
- Posts: 273
- Joined: 11 Feb 2007 02:37
44 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests