Hypocrite!
It's the preferred invective that liberals love to throw at conservatives. Seemingly the highest sin in their pantheon is hypocrisy. Let some conservative be found to have transgressed moral standards, as say the Reverend Ted Haggard and Congressman Mark Foley did during the last election cycle, and the liberals commence to howling. Hypocrites!
So, it is some substantial irony that one of their own appears to qualify for the label this week. That being ex-Vice President Al Gore. Within a week of his coronation at the Academy Awards ceremony as the most virtuous exemplar of environmental morality, a man who tireless lectures the rest of us on doing our part to save the planet, an inconvienient fact emerges. Mr. Gore, it turns out, is an energy hog. His mansion in Nashville consumes 20 times the energy that the average household in the area consumes! Oops.
Wait for it a minute.....Hush.....listen closely. Is the usual choir tuning up to shout HYPOCRITE! Uh, no. The libs are trotting out all the spin on why it's really alright that Mr. Gore is sucking up energy at a prodigious rate because he has a bigger house than we do. It's alright because he's a bigger person than we are, so he deserves it. Besides, he's putting up a solar panel or two, so back off.
The real irony is the reports this week that the house that really is "green" to the gills is President Bush's house in Crawford Texas, which uses very little energy on the grid. You'll probably be seeing that reported in the front pages of all of the liberal media sources. Or not. Hypocrites.
Okay, current nominees for hypocrite aside, let me offer a defense of the targets of the charge of hypocrisy.
My take on it has always been this: at least they are trying to hold up a higher standard. To live to any standard at all. It has seemed to me the utmost folly that the user shouters of Hypcrite! are people who assault "standards" wherever they see them - who espouse living any way you want to. I'd rather follow the example of those who held up a standard, even if they fall short of it themselves personally.
Mr. Gore included.
But come on Al, turn off a light bulb already on your way out to the private jet.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Color Me Not Convinced on Global Warming
In the wake of the Academy Awards' coronation of Al Gore last night, putatively over his documentary win for "An Inconvenient Truth", let me give you my off-the-cuff take on Global Warming. (Or is it now more politically correctly "Global Climate Change", given the inconvenient truth that we're being hammered with snowstorm after snowstorm in the last two months? )
I saw the movie as a DVD rental. I'll have to say it was a decently done documentary, as they go. Slanted with a bias as documentaries almost always are, but way more straightforward than "Farenheit 911", for example. It kept my interest. It made it's point. Probably worth an award. I disagreed with a lot of the content, but I'll give it props for quality.
Consider me not convinced on the topic of Global Warming. Granted, I'm not an internationally recognized climatologist. Just a blogger in my pajamas. But, I do read up on the topic and have reached my own conclusion, Al Gore's mega-stature in Hollywood notwithstanding.
Let me just throw out a couple of observations on the topic from my POV:
1. When you think of accuracy in scientific endeavors, do you generally think of meterologists leading the way. Do you trust you local weatherman more than 50/50 to help you decide whether to take a sweater with you next Tuesday? Yet, somehow we're supposed to trust them to know what the temperature of the earth's surface was 2000 years ago so that we know it's warmer now? Really?
2. Clearly the activists on the topic cherry pick their evidence. Did it escape everyone's notice that activists were pointing and shouting "Aha!" during the heavy hurricane season of 2005 (especially Katrina), but were completely silent in 2006 when not one major hurricane hit the continental U.S.? If the earth is "warming", which implies movement in one direction, and the 2005 season was so obviously a clear effect and result of the warming, then how does it just pause for 2006?
3. I don't doubt that the earth's climate changes. I'm sure it has throughout the whole history of the earth. It changes from hour to hour, from day to day, from year to year. Probably from century to century and milenium to milenium. I just don't think that the recent changes are significantly attributable to human activity. It's hubris, born of a sense of technological mastery, to think that we are that able to effect weather patterns on the earth to that degree.
4. Moraines. Lots of them in the state where I live. I learned about moraines in some university science course or other, and I can even recognize some of them in the terrain around me. Let me just simplify it to say they are terrain deformations caused by advancing or retreating glaciers. Picture a glacier pushing up a pile of dirt in front of it as it advances, leaving a mound in place when it retreats. Voila!, a moraine. Lots of them sticking up from the cornfields in the midwest. Evidence of glaciers covering our area, even this far south, with the last time being some 14 thousand years ago. Obviously, since I'm not covered in ice and am able to breathe, they are not here now. Why not? What caused the warming that caused the end of the Ice Age and the glacier's retreat if General Motors wasn't around yet to produce cars that cause emissions that form greenhouse gases that cause Global Warming?
5. Ocam's Razor. The simplest answer is usually the right one. In this case, the simplest cause of the earth's warming - if it exists - is the sun! Yes, that giant yellow heater in the sky. Here you need to know only two salient facts: 1) the sun's output varies and 2) we are a fixed distance away. (93 million miles, as I learned for some quiz or other in an Astonomy class). When the sun's output decreases, we get colder. When it increases, we get hotter. Class dismissed.
Oh, you need a scientist to say it? Go here and read about it.
So, I am amply not convinced that human activity is to blame for any global climate change. Sorry.
Having said that, that's not to say that we don't have things to learn and improvements to make in the way we use energy. I got that point in my visit last year to Europe, and even from Mr. Gore's movie. That was useful. It's reasonable to say that we do waste a lot of energy, and we should do better. We can say that without all of the panic crisis talk and the blaming-humans-first fingerpointing.
I'm off to bed, and I'll turn the thermostat down as I go to save a little energy. But, it's a sacrifice because it's sure been cold outside lately.
I saw the movie as a DVD rental. I'll have to say it was a decently done documentary, as they go. Slanted with a bias as documentaries almost always are, but way more straightforward than "Farenheit 911", for example. It kept my interest. It made it's point. Probably worth an award. I disagreed with a lot of the content, but I'll give it props for quality.
Consider me not convinced on the topic of Global Warming. Granted, I'm not an internationally recognized climatologist. Just a blogger in my pajamas. But, I do read up on the topic and have reached my own conclusion, Al Gore's mega-stature in Hollywood notwithstanding.
Let me just throw out a couple of observations on the topic from my POV:
1. When you think of accuracy in scientific endeavors, do you generally think of meterologists leading the way. Do you trust you local weatherman more than 50/50 to help you decide whether to take a sweater with you next Tuesday? Yet, somehow we're supposed to trust them to know what the temperature of the earth's surface was 2000 years ago so that we know it's warmer now? Really?
2. Clearly the activists on the topic cherry pick their evidence. Did it escape everyone's notice that activists were pointing and shouting "Aha!" during the heavy hurricane season of 2005 (especially Katrina), but were completely silent in 2006 when not one major hurricane hit the continental U.S.? If the earth is "warming", which implies movement in one direction, and the 2005 season was so obviously a clear effect and result of the warming, then how does it just pause for 2006?
3. I don't doubt that the earth's climate changes. I'm sure it has throughout the whole history of the earth. It changes from hour to hour, from day to day, from year to year. Probably from century to century and milenium to milenium. I just don't think that the recent changes are significantly attributable to human activity. It's hubris, born of a sense of technological mastery, to think that we are that able to effect weather patterns on the earth to that degree.
4. Moraines. Lots of them in the state where I live. I learned about moraines in some university science course or other, and I can even recognize some of them in the terrain around me. Let me just simplify it to say they are terrain deformations caused by advancing or retreating glaciers. Picture a glacier pushing up a pile of dirt in front of it as it advances, leaving a mound in place when it retreats. Voila!, a moraine. Lots of them sticking up from the cornfields in the midwest. Evidence of glaciers covering our area, even this far south, with the last time being some 14 thousand years ago. Obviously, since I'm not covered in ice and am able to breathe, they are not here now. Why not? What caused the warming that caused the end of the Ice Age and the glacier's retreat if General Motors wasn't around yet to produce cars that cause emissions that form greenhouse gases that cause Global Warming?
5. Ocam's Razor. The simplest answer is usually the right one. In this case, the simplest cause of the earth's warming - if it exists - is the sun! Yes, that giant yellow heater in the sky. Here you need to know only two salient facts: 1) the sun's output varies and 2) we are a fixed distance away. (93 million miles, as I learned for some quiz or other in an Astonomy class). When the sun's output decreases, we get colder. When it increases, we get hotter. Class dismissed.
Oh, you need a scientist to say it? Go here and read about it.
So, I am amply not convinced that human activity is to blame for any global climate change. Sorry.
Having said that, that's not to say that we don't have things to learn and improvements to make in the way we use energy. I got that point in my visit last year to Europe, and even from Mr. Gore's movie. That was useful. It's reasonable to say that we do waste a lot of energy, and we should do better. We can say that without all of the panic crisis talk and the blaming-humans-first fingerpointing.
I'm off to bed, and I'll turn the thermostat down as I go to save a little energy. But, it's a sacrifice because it's sure been cold outside lately.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Good and Evil at the Movies
I love movies. I have since I was a kid, and more so since I worked at a theater in high school. DVD's and big TVs are fine, but no substitute for the Big Screen Experience.
I was reminded of that this evening, when I took the opportunity to visit a small non-chain theater in an even smaller town. So small that the guy selling tickets also manned the concession stand and probably started the movie. Old and quaint seating in this day of stadium-seat multiplexes. But fun, nevertheless, once the movie started. Just like the old cinema, long-ago closed down, that I used to work at. It made me miss the old days.
The movie, now that was something else. Brand spankin' new. Full of movie stars and special effects. "GhostRider" starring Nicholas Cage and Eva Mendes, based on some Marvel comic book. Interesting, yeah. Slick, yeah. Evil - oh yeah.
What makes it evil is the banality, the unseriousness about the topic. Basic plot line: the Devil tricks a kid into signing a contract for his soul and then turns him into the Devil's employee, a bounty hunter. From there on out it turns into a special effects bonanza of how the good guy (Cage with his skull on fire) can beat the bad guy ( the Devil, and the Devil's son who wants to whack Dad and take over) and still get the girl.
Clearly for the makers of the movie (writer, director, Hollywood in general) the Devil and your soul and so on are not serious issues to be be given serious consideration, but plot devices in a comic book / movie.
That's the problem. Movies have power over people's imagination. They can inspire you, or they can desensitize you. So much violence reduced to crowd pleasing fun! So much evil - and is there more evil than the devil signing a contract with you for your soul - reduced to popcorn munching entertainment.
My overall impression of the movie - well made by Hollywood standards - was vulgar evil reduced and marketed to kids as the latest comic book / video game / action movie plot line.
Evil. I'm sorry that I saw it.
On the other hand, I'm excited about tomorrow's release of the movie "Amazing Grace". Talk about a serious movie that treats it's moral topic seriously! It's the story of two men who illustrate courage (Wilberforce) and redemption (Newton).
William Wilberforce has long been a hero of mine. He was a member of Parliment in England who introduced legislation to ban the slave trade in England. Not once. Not twice. But eighteen years in a row until it finally passed. He showed the moral courage to stand against the great moral evil of his time, slavery, even when it was legal and popular.
How did I know about Wilberforce, when most don't. Well because he's a hero to the pro-life activists in America who see a parallel to slavery and abortion. Slavery was the great moral challenge of Wilberforce's generation, as abortion is ours. Pro-life activists are motivated by his story to perservere in our efforts to end the legal and "acceptable" evil of abortion in this country. 33 years now. 40 million dead. But Wilberforce's legacy is the courage to perservere.
Newton was a slave trader who almost drowned in a shipwreck. He transformed, became a small parish pastor, and spoke out against slavery while writing the powerful hymn "Amazing Grace". He was was lost, but then was found.
What I didn't know was that these two men were connected. Newton inspired Wilberforce. As Wilberforce inspires me.
Two movies.
One Hollywood blockbuster - "Ghostrider" - unserious about evil, and thus evil.
One smaller independent film - "Amazing Grace" - about good.
I wish I would have saved my money tonight instead of wasting it on evil and used it, instead, to help someone else get into "Amazing Grace" to learn about good.
I was reminded of that this evening, when I took the opportunity to visit a small non-chain theater in an even smaller town. So small that the guy selling tickets also manned the concession stand and probably started the movie. Old and quaint seating in this day of stadium-seat multiplexes. But fun, nevertheless, once the movie started. Just like the old cinema, long-ago closed down, that I used to work at. It made me miss the old days.
The movie, now that was something else. Brand spankin' new. Full of movie stars and special effects. "GhostRider" starring Nicholas Cage and Eva Mendes, based on some Marvel comic book. Interesting, yeah. Slick, yeah. Evil - oh yeah.
What makes it evil is the banality, the unseriousness about the topic. Basic plot line: the Devil tricks a kid into signing a contract for his soul and then turns him into the Devil's employee, a bounty hunter. From there on out it turns into a special effects bonanza of how the good guy (Cage with his skull on fire) can beat the bad guy ( the Devil, and the Devil's son who wants to whack Dad and take over) and still get the girl.
Clearly for the makers of the movie (writer, director, Hollywood in general) the Devil and your soul and so on are not serious issues to be be given serious consideration, but plot devices in a comic book / movie.
That's the problem. Movies have power over people's imagination. They can inspire you, or they can desensitize you. So much violence reduced to crowd pleasing fun! So much evil - and is there more evil than the devil signing a contract with you for your soul - reduced to popcorn munching entertainment.
My overall impression of the movie - well made by Hollywood standards - was vulgar evil reduced and marketed to kids as the latest comic book / video game / action movie plot line.
Evil. I'm sorry that I saw it.
On the other hand, I'm excited about tomorrow's release of the movie "Amazing Grace". Talk about a serious movie that treats it's moral topic seriously! It's the story of two men who illustrate courage (Wilberforce) and redemption (Newton).
William Wilberforce has long been a hero of mine. He was a member of Parliment in England who introduced legislation to ban the slave trade in England. Not once. Not twice. But eighteen years in a row until it finally passed. He showed the moral courage to stand against the great moral evil of his time, slavery, even when it was legal and popular.
How did I know about Wilberforce, when most don't. Well because he's a hero to the pro-life activists in America who see a parallel to slavery and abortion. Slavery was the great moral challenge of Wilberforce's generation, as abortion is ours. Pro-life activists are motivated by his story to perservere in our efforts to end the legal and "acceptable" evil of abortion in this country. 33 years now. 40 million dead. But Wilberforce's legacy is the courage to perservere.
Newton was a slave trader who almost drowned in a shipwreck. He transformed, became a small parish pastor, and spoke out against slavery while writing the powerful hymn "Amazing Grace". He was was lost, but then was found.
What I didn't know was that these two men were connected. Newton inspired Wilberforce. As Wilberforce inspires me.
Two movies.
One Hollywood blockbuster - "Ghostrider" - unserious about evil, and thus evil.
One smaller independent film - "Amazing Grace" - about good.
I wish I would have saved my money tonight instead of wasting it on evil and used it, instead, to help someone else get into "Amazing Grace" to learn about good.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Newt!
Finally, an election watcher is saying what I've been saying for weeks - months - now: Newt Gingrich will be the surprise in the Republican field for the 2008 presidential election. Dick Morris has an article up this week making that case.
It's pretty simpleto figure out, really. Newt has been making many, many trips to New Hampshire in the last year. Now, I like New Hampshire. Been there a lot lately, even one week when Newt was there. There's a lot going for the state. But, honestly, the only reason a politician makes repeat trips to New Hampshire in a presidential election cycle is to win support for their early primary. Newt is paying his dues, quietly.
Can Newt win the Republican nomination? Of course he can. Here's why:
- He's known. And experienced.
- He's a strong conservative in a field lacking in strong conservatives.
- He's a winner. He took the Republicans to victory, where his successor Denny Hastert presided over the eventual corruption and complacency that took them to defeat.
- He's a strategist. An idea man. You can't deny that. The man knows where he wants to take us, and why. He's the man behind the "Contract With America", still derided on the left and still supported on the right.
The only question is: will he run?
He's being coy on that point, saying that he will only run if no one makes a strong enough case for the Republicans.
My bet? He'll run (he's not spending all that time in New Hampshire for nothing), and he will have a strong chance of winning the nomination. I like him. I'll support him if he runs.
Newt!
It's pretty simpleto figure out, really. Newt has been making many, many trips to New Hampshire in the last year. Now, I like New Hampshire. Been there a lot lately, even one week when Newt was there. There's a lot going for the state. But, honestly, the only reason a politician makes repeat trips to New Hampshire in a presidential election cycle is to win support for their early primary. Newt is paying his dues, quietly.
Can Newt win the Republican nomination? Of course he can. Here's why:
- He's known. And experienced.
- He's a strong conservative in a field lacking in strong conservatives.
- He's a winner. He took the Republicans to victory, where his successor Denny Hastert presided over the eventual corruption and complacency that took them to defeat.
- He's a strategist. An idea man. You can't deny that. The man knows where he wants to take us, and why. He's the man behind the "Contract With America", still derided on the left and still supported on the right.
The only question is: will he run?
He's being coy on that point, saying that he will only run if no one makes a strong enough case for the Republicans.
My bet? He'll run (he's not spending all that time in New Hampshire for nothing), and he will have a strong chance of winning the nomination. I like him. I'll support him if he runs.
Newt!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)