I saw the movie by myself after work this past Friday. Phenomenal!
I took my girlfriend today, she was quite moved by the whole thing as well.
I intend to watch it again... and again... and to buy tickets and act as taxi, if need be, for anyone who isn't immediately excited about seeing it.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I have a new role model and his name is Al Gore; that's a morally derived judgement and not in any way a partisan statement.
Until my first viewing of this movie, I was all excited about the movie "Crash" and while I still think Crash is an important film, "An Inconvenient Truth" strikes me as even more important.
Convenience be damned! Give me truth!
Posted by Richard Harlos at June 4, 2006 08:06 PMl Gr's nw rlgn prmss hllfr nd dmntn f w d nt bw t hs ddlbrnd thlgy. Mny smpl mnds wll b swyd by hs fllcs ssrtns tht th sm phnmn tht hv pncttd rth's ntrl hstry frm th bgnnng r pclr t rcnt mmry. Th mn s fr t ntrtn hs wn prvt dlsn s h wshs, bt h xhbts ll th rrspnsblty f n wh shts "FR" n crwdd thtr.
[Editor: ignore=off]Thanks for posting the information about the estate tax bill. It really is crucial that we stop this bill from passing--all it would amount to is another tax break for the uber-rich, at a time when our country is facing the largest deficit in it's history. It simply doesn't make sense.
If you haven't arleady, be sure to check out my coalition's website as linked in the blog, Coalition for America's Priorities.
And contact your Senators!!
Posted by C4AP at June 5, 2006 04:55 AMBendito--
You speak of 'private delusions' and 'irresponsibility' in your comment. Does it not enter your awareness that by ranting against someone and something exclusively in generalities that you, yourself, appear guilty of the very same qualities?
You neglect to publicize WHY you feel/think as you do, which makes the details of your position 'private.'
You speak in generalities that contradict known, specific data associated with the matter under question, suggesting that your position is also rooted in some manner of self-deception, i.e., a 'delusion.'
You speak of 'new religion' and 'addlebrained theology' without a single, specific reference for any of us 'simple minds' to reconsider.
If any irresponsibility of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is apparent, it exists solely within your sweeping generalizations of disagreement ("Fire") in the context of an Internet-visible comment ("crowded theatre").
Are we all supposed to get up and run away from the data Gore has presented and the associated rationale simply because you're said little more than "Bah, simple minds; you're wrong because I said so!"?
No, Bendito, you've neither exhibited responsibility nor specificity in your claims of error. Your comment appears, to me, no more substantial than that of a whining child who doesn't understand why he cannot play in the street. The child makes lots of noise, attacking those who seek to limit his play area for his own safety. Why does the child attack those whose judgement expresses a sensible rationale and a love for him and his well-being, and the well-being of those around him?
Because he is a child, and because as such, he is too immature to recognize, let alone understand, his own ignorance.
The data speaks for itself, Bendito. It needs no particular person to give it context. Perhaps you'd care to examine the data before offering additional opinions that oppose otherwise clearly compelling conclusions.
Gore's movie isn't a partisan film; it's a moral film. It asks the question concerning what a person's personal, moral responsibility is when confronted with facts that reveal that his current patterns of thinking and behaving are showing measurable signs of damage on a planetary scale?
One is obligated to consider his ways in the face of such a revealing, don't you think? Some, however, have exhibited a more knee-jerk reaction without really considering the data or their part in the current state of affairs.
People like this are of no benefit to solving the problem any more than the child who throws a tantrum because he cannot play in the street as he wishes.
The difference here is one of scope. Were the guardians of the child to allow him to play in the street, the scope of consequences are relatively small: the child and perhaps a few motorists and pedestrians.
With global warming, allowing the child to play in the street affects every single person on this planet! To allow that child to play as he wishes because he whines the loudest would be complicit in a slow, deliberate murder of civilization as we know it.
Why do you want to kill me?
Posted by Richard Harlos at June 5, 2006 07:10 AMStart working on something really important, like stopping the sun from eventually going super nova.
Nothing like global incineration to cure the warming problem.
Posted by TIKI AL at June 5, 2006 07:31 AMThanks for the plug! By the way, if anybody lives in SoCal, please do whatever you can to help Francine take the 50th. It would be an outstanding coup.
Here's more info:
Posted by SFBrianCL at June 5, 2006 09:27 AM
Tiki AL--
Not that our sun going supernova isn't important -- it is -- but the proximity of a global-warming induced crisis is much, much closer than the crisis caused by our sun going SN, don't you think? :-)
When competing items of importance present themselves, a rational prioritization rooted in probability makes the most sense to me.
Posted by Richard Harlos at June 5, 2006 06:33 PM