Some Ideas Apparently Ain’t Acceptable in the Land of the Free
So I heard an MSNBC show host (a liberal or moderate) take Ted Turner to task for saying that in 10 to 20 years the world’s temperature may go up by 8 degrees and many of us will be dead as a result. He also said that some of the people fighting us in Iraq are the equivalent of freedom fighters–and was taken to task for this as if he was a crazy person.
Okay, so global warming might not occur as fast as Turner was indicating, but it is a threat to civilization as we know it–most scientists agree on this. At the very least, it’s not nuts to suggest it.
And, it is a fact that there are many people fighting the American occupation of Iraq who do not belong to any terrorist groups. (Imagine if in 20 years China occupied the U.S. in the interests of their national security. Anyone resisting would of course be called a terrorist, but would any American, thinking of this scenario, see resistance as “terrorism”?)
This all comes on the heels of the fiery sermons of Obama’s pastor. Apparently it’s not patriotic to question any aspect of America’s foreign policy or history. Apparently if your comments don’t fit easily into a binary system, you’re screwed. I guess the righteousness displayed by commentators in reaction to Turner or Obama’s pastor bothers me much, much more than what they are castigating.
April 2, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I think part of the problem is the way that the political discourse is constructed now (I’ll try not to spout off too much barely-digested Foucaultian rhetoric here, but he is an influence on how I perceive relationships) precludes much in the way of nuanced, considered responses. Our news and political commentary is constructed around a 15 to 30 second clip, a short retort, and then bam! we move on to the next blip/attack.
It’s much, much easier to reduce it to moron-level LCD terms, distortions and misrepresentations and all, than it is to ask the “average” person to stop, think, and to consider not just his/her point of view, but another’s. I could write pages on this, but it’s about time for me to sleep now. But for what it’s worth, my opinion on those issues is similar to yours, Jeff. Canned, pre-fab opinions scare me almost as much as what’s occurring with our physical and social environments these days.
April 2, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I have noticed this absolutely terrifying trend as well. I mean, I am actually registered with the Socialist Party on my voter identification card and I am beginning to wonder who is looking at that these days and thinking “Socialism is anti-American ’cause the guys on Fox News are constantly attacking socialist systems like Canada and Europe, so this asshole must hate America too.”
Even more ironic to me is the fact that no one in this nation seems to quite accept the fact that we are a nation founded by terrorists. Two-hundred and thirty some odd years ago a bunch of radical thinkers argued with the government in power, and then openly defied them to try this ridiculous sounding experiment called “democracy” – An idea so foolish that even the Romans, those paragons of systemic virtue, deemed it unusable and got themselves an Emperor and a proper line of succession. Combine this with the entirely un-ironic claims by news outlets and many of my fellow citizens that we are “bringing democracy to oppressed peoples” (apparently “of the people, for the people and by the people” only really matters if the pigmentation in their dermis is of a significantly low quantity) which is a word for word quote from the former USSR if one replaces ‘democracy’ with ‘communism’ when they started invading adjoining nations to consolidate the Iron Curtain. An actual reply from someone I pointed this out to: “But that was different. We’re right.”
To be perfectly honest, I am starting to become very, very wary about what I say in public anymore. And that more than anything terrifies me about the current political state.
April 3, 2008 at 4:18 am
As Edward Whittemore so wisely says “Men always justify wars by claiming they’re fighting the barbarians. What they don’t bother to add is that the reason wars are continuous in history is because the barbarians are inside us.”
Substitute “terrorist” for “barbarian”.
and…
“Why is it that the Mongols of this world always tell us they’re defending us against the Mongols?”
April 3, 2008 at 5:00 am
Yes, actually, what surprised me about the Pastor thing, was not what he said, but that people were surprised he said it. I makes me wonder what kind of lives many American’s are leading. I have been hearing all sorts of people say the same stuff for years—both black and white.
The real problem is the sickening disease called “patriotism”, which since history began has led humans to commit atrocities, their eyes blind-folded with flags.
Personally, it looks to me like global warming is moving pretty strong. Where I live I can see it. Glaciers are melting, tropical insects are finding homes in high mountain regions, t-shirts can be worn in the middle of winter.
April 3, 2008 at 8:33 am
All I can say is, I come across instances of willful blindness, religious intolerance, and pig-ignorance every day. I would laugh if I wasn’t absolutely horrified.
April 3, 2008 at 8:38 am
I have no problem with Ted’s statements. He’s not what I consider an intellectual expert on either matter. It disturbs me that Reverend Wright says those things, but he’s allowed. What really bothers me is that no one is opened to an honest debate anymore. It seems that due to our sound bite culture, everyone holds their beliefs so tightly, and that it’s an attack on the person to disagree with them. What happened to the people who are willing and open minded enough to put their ideas up to be scrutinized? What happened to trying to look at anyting from the other sides point of view?
I’m a global warming doubter (not denier, but feel free to flame away), but I think it’s an important discussion for many reasons. However, it should be an open debate. Pro-warming scientists should debate anti-warming scientists, openly. It is through two people who disagree that science advances. Divers Hands says that he (she?) is afraid to speak in public because of being a socialist. What about the scientists who can’t get jobs for questioning global warming? Isn’t science about questioning the world around us? The basic principles and mathematic foundations of this theory should be open to peer review. Einstein had people working to prove him wrong, and the fact that they couldn’t is what made his theories so timeless.
I just don’t understand why having an honest, open discussion is so hard anymore. Hilary should put her tax record out there, Obama should discuss Rescoe and McCain needs to be held accountable for his role in the savings and loan scandals. McCain also needs to announce his V.P. (not that I think he’s got a shot at getting elected) because he’s ancient. Instead of talking over each other, we should listen, take a moment to digest and review, and then respond.
April 3, 2008 at 9:13 am
My only argument re global warming is that these things we would need to do to combat it are the same things we need to do to get cancer rates down, make sure we can meet our energy needs for future generations, etc. So regardless of what side of this you’re on (and, frankly, most scientists believe global warming is occurring), a debate on that subject isn’t as urgent as others–we need to just do it, for our own health and the well-being of the biosphere. Who doesn’t want less pollution, for example? As for the cost, the healthcare costs and other costs of continuing to pollute and to base our economies on oil far outweigh the switch to smart alternative, clean fuels, etc.
Jeff
April 3, 2008 at 9:35 am
Yes, not to mention that “car culture” is really ruining the planet. There are ever-fewer wildlife spots to go to escape the fumes of automobiles. I think our standard of life is hampered by relying so heavily on cars for a false sense of freedom.
April 3, 2008 at 10:35 am
Jeff, Corey & Larry–agreed.
Divers hands–How does being registered Socialist impact your ability to vote in local elections? I don’t know if there’s been a registered Socialist in my southern neck of the woods since the pre-Red Scare, post-Reconstruction days.
Anne–good and topical quotes. Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad Gita when he witnessed the testing of the Bomb, saying “And now behold I am become Death, destroyer of worlds.” Clearly our Fearless Leader isn’t exactly literate, witty or open-minded towards other religious texts, else he may have done the same upon commencing our “War on Terror.”
Brendan–not to bring up symantics, but there’s an important and topical distinction between patriotism and nationalism. I agree with your sentiments whole-heartedly, but the really problematic issue is nationalism and not patriotism. A rose by any other name, of course, but loving your country (patriotism) is very different from blindly believing your country can do no wrong and that all other nations are inferior (nationalism). The issue is when leaders exploit a population’s natural patriotism and pervert it into nationalism via propaganda and fear-mongering. One example would be Germany on the eve of the second World War, but there’s another, more recent and local example…I just can’t seem to think what it might be…
Eric–You are dead on that debate and doubt between conflicting camps is the only way of weeding out good from bad science, however the real global warming “debate” ended sometime ago. Just as Eugenics persisted among the general population and a few indiviual scientists for a time after the scientific community as a whole rejected it as poppycock, we will be hearing plenty of refutation for years to come from rogue scientists who refuse to accpet the general consensus–global warming is happening, and whether humans are 100% responsible or not, we are undeniably magnifying the problem.
As for scientists not being able to get work due to their rejecting a theory which the scientific community is in virtual agreement upon, I’m afriad I have little sympathy. This is just an example of how bad science is weeded out. Look at Eugenics, or more recently, the whole cigarette issue. The only scientists you’ll find who go against the majority opinion are those researchers who work for tobacco companies. Anyway, given our country’s reliance on environmentally damaging luxuries and fuels, it seems being a scientist who comes out saying global warming is either being exagerrated or is not related to humans would be quite profitable…
Jeff and Brendan–agreed again.
April 3, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Jesse–
Yes, I understand your point, and it is good to differentiate. The problem with patriotism though, is that it is not just love of one’s country, but it is also “national loyalty”. I love the United States very much. But once one starts to get into the loyalty aspect and the defence aspect, I start to cringe. Because I also love other countries: Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Mexico. And the only loyalty I think a person should feel is towards truth. And keeping the United States safe would best be done by connecting on a real level with people of other nations, not simply stating that we are the most powerful and the best so obey us or else.
So, I definately understand and appreciate your point. A love of the mountains and plains of the United States is a good thing. A blind feeling of superiority isn’t.
April 3, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Freedom fighting is always legal in the first person, as in “our freedoms we’re fighting for.” It’s always in the third person, “their freedoms,” that it become terrorism (to paraphrase 1776).
April 3, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Eric, I also have a problem with having sympathy for those scientist crying foul over not being hired (because they reject “Global Warming” or “Evolution”). It would be the same as if I went to my boss, said I wanted to work down on the printing presses, and oh, BTW, this whole “water and oil don’t mix” thing, yeah, don’t buy into that (in case you don’t know, “water and oil” not mixing is the basic principle by which offset lithography works). They wouldn’t hire me for that position in that case. Same thing for those scientists. It would be like walking into a bank for a teller job and saying, “these fancy computers are all the rage, but I’d rather do my work on an abacus.”
As for “showing the debate” as well and good, as long as you show the debate in proportion. In that case, any show that would discuss “Global Warming/Climate Change” and have both sides would need stadium style seating to fit all their guests supporting the “Yes, global warming/climate change is here” to the one seat for the “nah, it’s not happening, or at least is a good thing for us” side. When shows do have both sides of this issue on, they really do a disservice to the public by equating the two sides and making them appear to have equal weight, when they really don’t.
And if there were some scientist out there that could show it wasn’t happening, and back it up with hard data, they would be an instant celebrity in scientific circles. Sure, it would take over a decade to win over everybody, but they would get better treatment than you imagine. This is why most of them get a hearing, and then, after that, they are roundly ignored because their science doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
If you would like an example of this, I submit for your edification the scientific debate over “string theory” (or I believe it’s now called “M” Theory). This is how it looks in science. And this would over throw much of Einstein’s work. This is how science actually works to change it’s mind. Compare their function to the “Global Warming Deniers” and “Evolution just ain’t it” scientists and you can see just how unscientific the nay-sayers are being.
April 4, 2008 at 12:04 am
I have to say, anyone who was wildly surprised by Reverend Wright’s speech a.) is woefully unaware of their African-American history and b.) hasn’t done much reading of the prophets, major and minor alike, in the Old Testament. Go read a good translation of Jeremiah’s rants, or Micah’s, or any of them–those boys didn’t pull in punches on calling out the leadership for abusive behavior, and they made some pretty explicit links to environmental catastrophe as an effect of greed and injustice.
Myself, I am very cautious about the term “global warming,” and prefer the term “climate change” as I think it’s going to be more accurate in the long run. I keep thinking about the implications of the possible impact of the Gulf Stream shutting down as a side effect of warming. Um…meanwhile, the wild weather my region has been experiencing over the past few years is a classic example of what I think we’ve got coming at us.
As for Ted Turner, he’s made a career out of overstatement. Doesn’t mean that the root to what he says is any less valid.