PR Firm Behind Al Gore YouTube Spoof?

mytrip writes to tell us ABC News is reporting that a supposed amateur video posted to YouTube.com may have actually been designed and posted by a Republican public relations firm called DCI. From the article: "Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films."

Comments

Obvious?

[Silverlancer]

This falls into the category of "duh" for me. Who else would sponsor such a thing? Maybe the oil companies?

Re:Obvious?

[errorlevel]

Actually, DCI has ExxonMobil as a client.

Re:Obvious?

[WiFiBro]

Some detective work on where he mailed from. But don't tell them, they made this mistake before, and will hopefully do it again.
"Monsanto's PR firm admits involvement in e-mail campaign to discredit scientists"
(2002)
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/1007 6.htm

Re:Obvious?

[intnsred]

I agree. The oil companies and right-wing have poured millions for many years into discrediting global warming and environmentalists in general. This has been profusely documented.

What's surprising is if this can be linked directly to the Republican Party. After all, we know they worked many ways to undermine the last two national elections, but a direct link to dirty tricks like this would be hitting an all-new low. (As if cooking elections isn't low enough.)

Re:Obvious?

[Golias]

Every college newspaper in America has job openings posted around election season offering to pay you to pretend to be a motivated volunteer cold-calling and canvassing for the Democrats or various 527 groups. How is it news that the Republicans also astroturf?

Unless you've been incredibly naive, that is.

Re:Obvious?

[aardvarkjoe]

How is it news that the Republicans also astroturf?

The difference is that the Democrats do it for the forces of Good, while the Republicans do it for Evil.

Re:Obvious?

[Roody Blashes]

I like how when things like this show up the rethuglicans always spin it as "oh, we didn't do anything bad. THEY do it too!". But, of course, what the thugs did is always about one hundred times more morally bankrupt than what the dems did.

See, the problem with dems paying kids to push their talking points by phone is that it's telemarketing, and people hate telemarketing.

The problem with thugs paying a PR firm to produce a smeer video full of false information under the guise of gentle jesting by a person who is in no way, shape, or form even remotely like the company that actually made the video is that it's deceptive on every possible level and treats potential voters like idiot sheep who can be led about like brainless imbeciles by whatever pretty pictures and funny words can be put to celluloid (or bits, in this case).

But, yea, those two things are exactly the same. Oh. And the republicans are "for the working man". And millionaire party snob Bush is a real folksy guy. Uh huh.

Hello toto. That one must've been a F5!

Re:Obvious?

[FLEB]

Why in the world would the "oil companies" give a rat's ass about "man made" global warming in the first place?

Solutions to the problem often cut out oil usage. No problem, no solutions, no oil-cutting needed.

Re:Obvious?

[Swift2001]

That's exactly the point. The whole reason they do this is for deception. You're supposed to think, "Oh, it was on YouTUBE. People must really think Gore is stupid." Well, Exxon and the Republican Party think that, but this thing is a fake.

Re:Obvious?

[biendamon]

How is it news that the Republicans also astroturf?

Might it be because the callers you're talking about identify themselves as either members of the Democratic party or employees of a 527? And that those calls are not astroturfing?

Re:Obvious?

[DeadChobi]

Remember that anything is justifiable in the cause of The Party. Deciet and treachery are made acceptable because they believe that their goals are noble. In a way it's just as despicable as invading a soverign nation to depose a despot. The Party wouldn't accept that as just, but did it all the same. Frankly I think that the fact that they think they can lead us around by our collective asses using our own information-sharing technology speaks volumes of their morality, or lack thereof.

Re:Obvious?

[Serveert]

"Political TV ads always have to say who paid for them. I don't see how a video posted to youtube would be any different."

"The best PR goes unnoticed" is apt in this case. PR firms wouldnt survive if you knew who paid them.

Read this for more information about how PR companies shape America.


In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83

Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."84

At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.

Re:Obvious?

[packeteer]

You phrased these lines in a typical deceptive way. What you should have said was "LIBERALS brought an end to slavery in America." Remember that the Republican party was the left leaning party in the 19th century and the democrats where the conservative right wing party.

Re:Obvious?

[xenobyte]

The oil companies and right-wing have poured millions for many years into discrediting global warming and environmentalists in general.

Now, I don't particulary support the oil companies (don't even own a car, and I even walk most places as 'suggested' in this spoof) but I think the global warming scare has been blown so much out of proportion that it has begun to look a lot like a religious cult where facts and reality has stopped being important at all, and the core idea is bigger than anything.

Nobody stops up anymore and questions anything. It is now considered a fact carved in stone that global warming occurs, that it is entirely man-made and that the right action by man absolutely will fix everything. It is heresy to even consider that some or all of the effects seen might be the result of some natural process not understood completely. It is downright blasphemy to even hint that the suggested actions intended to fix things actually might make things worse (due to lack of understanding of the deeper issues).

I think it's time for some serious de-programming here.

Re:Obvious?

[skam240]

While I will agree that both parties are subject to corruption I find your examples of moral or immoral actions on the part of the democrat and republican parties a bit skewed.

Republicans brought an end to slavery in America.

Wow, talk about a radicaly outdated reference. The republican party of Lincoln is almost nothing like the party of today. packeteer said it well when he said it was liberals who freed the slaves, not modern day republicans.

I also find it funny that, that is the most recent positive deed you can come with for the republican party. speaks wonders for them.

Democrats let 1,000,000 Rwandans die.

Both parties are guilty of ignoring Africa. I don't see Bush Jr. rushing to do anything about the situation in Sudan and the massive loss of life taking place there. I should also mention before some one says "it's because we're too busy with Iraq" that there was plenty of violence happening in Africa prior to 9/11 and America's military adventurism in the middle east.

Re:Obvious?

[packeteer]

they were not leftist (no agenda of forced redistribution, etc).

So having an agenda on forced redistribution is the test of being liberal or not? Also once again im reading deceptive wording. Using words like "agenda of forced" makes it seem like a minority is forcing a majority to do something. Also im nto even sure what your talking about but I assume you mean policies such as student funding and food banks are "forced redistribution (of wealth)".

But back to your original statement, no my example does not lose all relevence. It was a LIBERAL or if you prefer the word PROGRESSIVE viewpoint that stopped slavery. You seem to have a knee jerk reflex to leftism as it relates to communism which, remember, did not exist in the 19th century.

You are trying your hand at revisionist history and its not working so well. Stop trying to drag modern feelings and pre-conceived notions to a discussion about something that happened in a different time.

Re:Obvious?

[Ulfalizer]

I suggest that you go find some real scientists of the climate sciences and ask them for their opinion on the causes of global warming. There's practically consensus ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686 ) among workers in the field that the recent global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

That so many have begun questioning this is a testimony to the effectiveness of recent PR campaigns from those who'd suffer from regulations.

Please don't just take my word for it though. Do the research yourself. Find workers in the field and ask them for their opinion. Find web pages and articles that discredit the theory that humans caused global warming and DO BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE AUTHORS. That last point cannot be stressed well enough, as it will reveal a disturbing pattern of vested interests and hidden sponsors.

As an example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on _climate_change#Survey_of_US_state_climatologists, the only "against" I could find on that page. A quick background check reveals http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizen s_for_a_Sound_Economy.

I recommend the book "Trust Us, We're Experts" to anyone wanting to get insight into how the modern PR industry operates.

Ulf Magnusson

Re:Obvious?

[a_nonamiss]

I am making this comment as a politically netural statement of fact.

LIBERAL != LEFT.

In our current state of politics in the United States, traditionally classified liberals tend to lean towards leftist ideas, but for some reason we seem to think the two are synonymous. They are not.

Re:Obvious?

[packeteer]

Remeber that Lincoln was a man of his day. It would be extremely unusual for him to really care about slavery as an educated rich white politician. Despite this there were people who did care on moral grounds to see slavery stopped. These are the forward thinking people that we call "progressive" by the most strict definition of the word.

Re:Obvious?

[packeteer]

First of all you are mixing modern "liberal" phrases with a time in our country that jsut does nto add up. You analogy is not very good.

Slavery was never a very good way of doing business. I wrote a paper in college breaking down the economics of slavery and let me tell you it was not that profitable. Depending on the era the slave was bought (import of new slaves was outlawed before slavery was abolished but smugglers still got them into the country) a young male slave would often cost from $40,000-50,000 in 2006 dollars.

Over the course of their lifetime they would produce enough goods to make it worth their original expensive but there were complications. Slaves would run away, get sick, die early, or be injured. Also minor sabotage was very common such as slaves intentionally using their hand tools incorrectly in order to break them (one example is while they were turning soil if they found a rock with their hoe they might break their tool over the rock and claim it was just an accident). Very few people ever afforded to buy slaves with cash and almost 100% of slave owners were in debt due to the loans for buying slaves.

So why did the south want slaves so much if it not only did not produce a good profit and also put them into debt? The answer is that the slave owners were building a way of life. They did not only care about their bottom line which is a business is run today. The slave owners were setting up and maintaining a society where the whites where at the top and even if they were not technically rich on paper they had a comfortable lifestyle living off the work of slaves. Even if someone was never able to pay off their debt they were trying to enter the plantation class which was actually a very small number of people. The poor whites defended the slave owners because it was the dream of many people to eventually become a plantation owner.

Re:Obvious?

[Haeleth]

Nobody stops up anymore and questions anything. It is now considered a fact carved in stone that global warming occurs, that it is entirely man-made and that the right action by man absolutely will fix everything. It is heresy to even consider that some or all of the effects seen might be the result of some natural process not understood completely. It is downright blasphemy to even hint that the suggested actions intended to fix things actually might make things worse (due to lack of understanding of the deeper issues).

Hardly. What people actually believe is that global warming appears to be occurring, that it appears to be influenced by human activity, and that the right action by man might slow it down or reduce its effects. It is unhelpful to stubbornly reject the evidence as insufficient without suggesting what evidence you would consider sufficient (short of New York sinking below the waves). It is downright irritiating to insist that no action should be taken until we have a complete understanding of the entire situation (which, according to the less optimistic projections, will not happen until long after it's too late to do anything).

And strawman arguments like yours are not helpful. It's very easy for you to brush off anyone who has been convinced by the scientific evidence for human-influenced global warming as "brainwashed" or "deluded". But hyperbole is not reality, and saying people believe things they don't believe does nothing to advance the debate.

Re:Obvious?

[Valdrax]

Needless to say aside from his brilliance as a president in a time of war, his economic policiies were a such a disacster that we are still recovering from them today.

Yes, we are certainly recovering from a time of prosperity and financial certainty and returning to the more natural state of depression and fear of crippling poverty that preceded his disasterous policies. Whew! Thank goodness!

Re:Obvious?

[inKubus]

In my opinion, there are 3 major groups of people in America.

1. The Chicken-Hawks. Creators of Freedom Fries and the stupid flag thing, they love Jesus, NASCAR and War. Their patron representatives are the conservative republicans. Side-effects of this group include abortion bans, the military-industrial complex, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the Iraq War. They are scared of, and I quote: "Ragheads, Niggers, Jews, Wetbacks, and 'terrorists'".

2. The Lefties. Creators of the "War on Globalization" and Greenpeace, they love Wicca, Soccer and War. Their patron representatives cannot get elected right now, or ever. They relegate themselves to Indymedia.org and protests. Side effects of this group include Wiretapping initiatives, the rise of the Neo-Cons in '00, coffee houses and the Canada thing. They are scared of Militant Christians, logical debate, and growing up.

3. Everyone Else. Creators of the economy, common sense, the space program, etc., they love to worship whatever they worship in moderation, football and baseball, and Peace. Side effects of this group include a strong American economy, foreign policy that is just the right balance between isolationist and imperialist, and the 50-50 distribution of votes in the last election. These people are having a hard time deciding who they trust, so they vote almost at random based on maybe one hotbed issue that is different for each of them. They are afraid of Chicken Hawks and Lefties.

Re:Obvious?

[phaggood]

> his economic policiies were a such a disacster that we are still recovering from them today.

I'm just praying for my great-great-grandkids, who'll be selling apples and pencils out of tin cups trying to recover from the econominc non-policies of the current CNC.

Re:Obvious?

[isa-kuruption]

Well, since we're taking things out of context, Lincoln also was quoted in a letter:

What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

And then there was also this quote:

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Oh and those quotes comes from... OH YEAH THE SAME LETTER YOU QUOTED FROM. In fact, here's the full text of the letter

Re:Obvious?

[crazyeddie740]

Actually, the Communist Manifesto was published back in 1848 (the same year as the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe), so Communism did exist in the 19th century, and before the Civil War to boot. Whether or not there were Communists here in the States is another question, and I'm not sure about the answer there.

But on the whole, I do agree with your post. Abe Lincoln's Republican party was "liberal" given certain defintions of liberal. He was also a Blue Stater. Today's Republican party is not the party of Abe Lincoln.

Re:Obvious?

[Shadowlore]

I agree. The oil companies and right-wing have poured millions for many years into discrediting global warming and environmentalists in general. This has been profusely documented.

Yeah because Gore and his family have never been tied with big oil.

  The history of the Gore family and Occidental Petroleum have been intertwined for generations. Al Gore Sr. was such a loyal political ally that Occidental's founder and longtime CEO, Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore "in my back pocket." When Gore Sr. left the Senate in 1970, Hammer gave him a half a million dollar a year job at an Occidental subsidiary and a seat on the company's board of directors. Money from Occidental and its subsidiaries formed the basis of the Gore family fortune.

But it is not only the land of Indigenous Colombians that Occidental is drilling against the wishes of the residents and indigenous inhabitants. In late 1997, Al Gore supported the federal government's three and a half billion dollar sale of the Elk Hills oil field in Bakersfield, California, to Occidental Petroleum. This was the largest privatization of federal property in US history. Occidental's plans to drill for oil in Elk Hills will disturb traditional burial sites for the Yokuts indigenous peoples of southern California. At stake are at least 100 ancient sites in the Buena Vista Lake region where Yokuts peoples once lived.

Yeah, it's OK to drill on ancient burial sites, but not a remote arctic wilderness. The difference? it wasn't Occidental wanting to drill in ANWR.

Face it: all the power-mongers are tied to each other.

And let us be perfecty honest here. Most global warming advocates do need "discredited" as they are flat out wrong. For example when they claim there is "universal consensus" and that "all scientists" agree. Or they claim there is nothing we can do to stop it, that it started a hundred years ago, and so on. Extremists on both sides need to be kept in check.

And most of the vocal environmentalsists are really concerned about doing things for the environment, they are about changing how YOU behave. They don't go for changes that are not invasive but yield high results. Where is Al Gore when efforts to increase tractor trailer weight limits are underway? These changes would increase net efficiency as well as safety on the road. But it is a cheap change. It is a conservation change that doesn't make you the consumer "stop and think" about what good people they are for making you do this. Nevermind that it would be the equivalent of going from 5 MPG to 12.5 MPG. Yeah a ~40-60% drop in trucking industry isn't worth making political hay over since it doesn't make people give anything up.

And therin lies one of the big problems with government politics. If it isn't controversial, it doesn't get press. If it doesn't get press, the politicians are much less interested in it. All of them.

The Linux Penguin

[keesh]

Isn't that the Linux penguin? And isn't said penguin trademarked and copyrighted?

Re:The Linux Penguin

[Ohreally_factor]

If it was a parody of Linux, it would be considered fair use. It's not a parody of Linux. Therefore, it's trademark and copyright infringement.

Re:The Linux Penguin

[Null Nihils]

Yes, that's the Linux Penguin.

I was intrigued to see that Roblimo has posted this video to YouTube, after he saw the astroturf video in the Slashdot submission bin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y08z9QMe0o

Re:The Linux Penguin

[jamie]

Yes! Oh, the humanity!

Re:The Linux Penguin

[Baricom]

Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks.

Source: http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/

I don't have a YouTube account. Anybody want to ask toutsmith where the penguins come from?

Re:The Linux Penguin

[praksys]

With trademark violations the key question is usually whether the use of the trademark creates a false impression that the product originated with the trademark owner. The non-comercial nature of this video, and the way in which the trademark is used is unlikely to create that sort of impression, so no trademark violation here.

The image is also protected by copyright but the copyright owner says: "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks." The key bit here being "if someone asks".

Re:The Linux Penguin

[AchiIIe]

It's not a parody of Linux. Therefore, it's trademark and copyright infringement.

Not true, it depends on how the logo is licensed. In this case the logo has been created by Larry Ewing, Simon Budig, and, Anja Gerwinski. They decide how it may be used. See Tux.svg and more importantly: http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/penguin/:

... The use of these drawings is free ...

Re:The Linux Penguin

[jonabbey]

What? Linux gets along fine with trademark and copyright law.

Re:The Linux Penguin

[Mr2001]

And just to play devil's advocate: why does everyone revolt so badly when our work is not being credited? We collectively abuse lot's of other licenses, whether music, software etc.

Because taking credit for another person's work is fraud. It's as close as you can get to actually "stealing" information, taking it (or at least the credit for it) away from its author. Sharing music, on the other hand, doesn't involve deceiving anyone about the origins of the music, unless you're intentionally mislabeling the files. I believe deceiving someone about the authorship of a work is far, far worse than simply disregarding the author's wishes about how it may be distributed, and I believe a lot of slashdotters agree.

{old,new} news

[Black Parrot]

Political hacks have been sponsoring spin in books and the "news" media since forever. What's new here is that they now see the blogosphere as important enough to merit attention.

Re:{old,new} news

[FFFish]

What's new here is whether we let them get away with it. "It" being the use of negative campaigning as a means to deceive the uninformed audience.

There is opportunity here to inform the cow-like public that they are being manipulated by assholes. US elections have become a race among liars and crooks. Time to demand better, partly by taking responsibility for one's own role in the process.

If enough of us take the time to care about the social quality of the candidate, we can have a system of honest, compassionate, competent people who are in it because they want us all to do well. A rising tide floats all boats: the greater the common good (ocean), the greater the individual good (your boat).

The only way to have long-term generational success is to ensure we make sure everyone has the opportunity for good health, good education, good standards, and good safety.

Re:{old,new} news

[foobsr]

Honestly admiring you that you have kept your optimism, and I am not cynical here.

CC.

Re:{old,new} news

[Reaperducer]

If enough of us take the time to care about the social quality of the candidate,

For those of you too young to remember, that one of the big issues during the 1992 campaign. Republicans said that Clinton didn't have the character to make a good president, and Democrats kept pounding home that, "character doesn't matter," making the Republicans out to be old-fashioned 1950's squares who didn't understand that running the country doesn't take integrity.

Fast-forward to a post-Lewinsky world and neither side seems to give a crap about the integrity of their candidates.

Re:{old,new} news

[not already in use]

The cow-like public is perfectly happy believing whichever bias news source they prefer. Generally, people tune into whichever Newscast will further enforce their preconceived opinions, rather than trying to get information in which to base an opinion on.

Re:{old,new} news

[brian0918]

Yes, the history books will clearly draw two dividing lines regarding US politics in the 20th century: pre/post-WWII, and pre/post-Lewinsky...

Re:{old,new} news

[Rix]

I'm willing to bet that Bill Clinton has more integrity than you do. Who polishes his nob is no ones business but those involved. Sexophobes included.

Re:{old,new} news

[niktemadur]

Absolutely. Amen to that.

While republican pundits and gop congressmen were tearing their own shirts in self-righteous indignation over the result of an $80 million investigation over real estate deals (a stained blue dress), the rest of the world didn't snicker at Clinton's peccadilloes, they in fact snickered at "the ridiculousness of those american prudes, so hung up about sex".

      And then, the ringleader of the impeachment movement, Newt Gingrich, resigned his post on the eve of Larry Flynt publishing in Hustler the nine extramarital affairs Gingrich had been involved in during the previous twenty years.
      And then, Gingrich's replacement, Robert Livingstone, who promised to continue the good fight for morals, integrity and decency, withdrew when Mr. Flynt uncovered one of his extramarital affairs.
      And then, the largest mouthpiece against Clinton's sins, thrice-divorced comedian Rush Limbaugh, is caught with industrial quantities of OxyContin and, later, unprescribed Viagra while returning from a caribbean vacation.

These hypocritical imbeciles are seen as 'martyrs' and/or 'heroes' in republican twisted family values circles, while Clinton is viewed as The Devil Himself. Yeah, right.

What many people do not get is that Clinton did not parade a stained blue dress in front of all the american public, children included, republicans did. Clinton did not flaunt and wave the image of a soaked cigar in front of the american public, republicans did. And then they tore their shirts in moral indignation at how the minds of children are being poisoned with decadence and depravity.

Under republican so-called standards of decency:
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and that would be Bill Clinton.

Re:{old,new} news

[hey!]

Democrats kept pounding home that, "character doesn't matter,"

That's the narrative of the '92 election put forth by the Republicans. While I'm sure in this vast country you can probably find a Democrat that uttered these words, this was just a Republican talking point, a straw argument they attributed to their enemies so they could manipulate the opinions of their base. Looks like it worked in your case.

A more representative Democratic viewpoint on character is this: character matters, but it's complex. Good people do bad things some times. Democrats believe in mitigating circumstances and allowances for human weakness. Republicans do not. Thus, in the Democratic view, a good man man might cheat on his wife in a moment of weakness, but he wouldn't bring up divorce when his wife while she was in a hospital bed recovering from surgery. The difference is character: in one case it's a common place flaw, in the other it's wanton self centeredness. The Republican viewpoint makes no allowance for circumstance of human weakness. It's wrong to cheat on your wife, so that's bad. It's unfortunate, but sometimes necessary to discuss divorce, so that's OK.

Yet, the standard issue Republican viewpoint on character is more rotten than merely misguided.

We would do well to remember what a Republican politician who sets himself up as a role model is: a politican. It only makes sense to heed this if you think politicians are suitable ethical role models. They're not. There's too much temptation. I'd even rather set up athletes as role models than politicians.

The reason Bill Bennett gets heat over his gambling problems is because he does not live up to his own professed standards, nor does he alter those standards in light of his personal experience. He remains a self-righteous scold who plies his self-appointed trade as arbiter of moral virtue as a weapon against people who disagree with him. Same with Rush and his drug problems.

You've given us the Republican view of the Democratic view on character. Now let me return the favor.

From the Democratic standpoint, the Republicans view of character consists of burdens they place on others and not themselves, of standards they impose on others with no intention of living up to themselves. It's a logical outcome of a political philosophy forged to defend the special privileges of the powerful and wealthy. In the Vietnam era, it promoted the benefits of anticommunism and wartime spending without the burden of fighting the war. Now, it's the future burden of deficit spending for war profiteering, and the liquidation of the nation's social and economic gains for current profit. Capital is, after all, mobile. Those who make their living from it can exploit the homeland and move the fruits offshore, the way corrupt oligarchies did throughout the twentieth century in countless third world countries.

Now, if the Republicans get to define "character" then I'll stand up and say "Character (as defined by the Republicans is a political ploy. It does not matter."

Makes sense

[thisnow1]

When I first saw the goofy cartoon, it seemed like no "real" person would've spent the time to make something so dumb. I really hope whoever threw it together got to fleece that PR firm in "production fees" for something so silly- then at least something good would come out of this.

Re:Makes sense

[dan828]

...no "real" person would've spent the time to make something so dumb.

You must not frequent youtube.

Maybe this link will work.

[khasim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI

And if any PR company produced that, they're seriously over paid.

Re:Maybe this link will work.

[wizbit]

And if any PR company produced that, they're seriously over paid.

Afraid you're missing the point. YouTube is largely community-produced content, often full of drunken dancing / buffoonery and clips from TV shows, etc. This clip was designed to "fit in" and look as amateurish as the rest of the tripe on YouTube to pass the smell test for most of the content there.

I'd say they did their job brilliantly.

Re:Maybe this link will work.

[Pantero Blanco]

Bingo. It's a campfire with no soldiers around it, designed to make one's forces look much more numerous than they are.

Of course, if they make it look too stupid, it just reflects badly upon their side...

Re:Maybe this link will work.

[Ohreally_factor]

The news report said that Exxon denied any knowledge. DCI, the PR firm, says it does not disclose the work it does for clients.

I bet we could find out lots in discovery if both Exxon and DCI were to be sued for trademark and copyright infringement (you'd need discovery to make the linkage to Exxon).

GRAA WANTS YOU!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you Gay?
Are you a republican?
Are you tired of the Apple Mac being associated with gay liberals?

If you answered yes to these questions the GRAA (GAY REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) wants to hear from you.

--
(c) copyright 2006 DCI
on behalf of the republican party

Re:Disclosure?

[iroll]

So, he, uh, flew on a plane all by himself?

By the way, maybe you should go see "An Inconvenient Truth." There's a lot of needless Gore biography, but the major point is that we can reduce a lot of CO2 emissions WITHOUT changing our lifestyles. Instead we need to stop being cheap bastards (and stop glad-handing our corrupt and inefficient industries) and pony up for some simple investments and regulations (like matching European and Asian fuel efficiency and investing in something other than coal power).

Continuation

[spikexyz]

This is a continuation of the oil industry and friends' campaign of "we can't argue the science anymore with out looking like morons, so we'll just call people names". It's like the bully in the school yard who knows he's wrong so he'll just kick and scream.

Re:This was less interesting when I submitted it..

[evilviper]

You know, I can understand complaints of rejected stories when they were submitted weeks or months before... But 24 hours? Give me a break.

So, the editors (using that term loosly here) probably got 1000 submissions of the story, and picked the one they prefered, instead of just the FIRST ONE, which probably wasn't yours (but somebody else before you) anyhow.

Re:Disclosure?

[thisnow1]

I keep hearing that statistic about his use of air fuel, but should he take a rowboat to China? You didn't see the movie probably- and I'm not saying anyone's "obligated" to do so. The message, however, as far as I can tell was very calm: This is a legit problem (spends a whole bunch of time on that- demonstrating things are a indeed bit amiss) but w/ some adjustments in efficiency and other areas this is a problem that does not need to be a problem. His presentation is not a call to abolish jetliners as we know it or make everyone get out and walk to work. At best, you could call him a hypocrite w/o any other way to get his ideas out yet. You make it personal (I guess as I'm doing w/ you right now) and miss the argument entirely- unable to weigh its merits. That last jab at 'ol Al for making that wacky statement that he invented the internet... check this out: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp But ignore all this, since you seem more interested in information from the "competitive enterprise institute" or the DCI Group- folks who like when they can get others to roll their eyes and dismiss new ideas.

And, notice the penguins

[greg_barton]

All of the penguins, the ones being hypnotized by Gore's global warming spiel, are Tux, the Linux mascot.

So, not only did the republican PR firm want to spoof Gore, they're saying you're all dupes and idiots. (And yes, if you're reading slashdot, they mean you.)

Ain't that interesting?

The real troubling thing...

[Roger Wilcox]

The real troubling thing here is that major news outlets including The Wall Street Journal, ABC, and even our beloved Slashdot are playing right into the hands of Exxon, DPI, and whoever else is behind the video.

By reporting about this incident, these outlets are providing the video a vast amount of exposure that it otherwise would not receive.

I'd bet anything that WSJ didn't stumble upon this story randomly - someone at DCI surreptitiously helped them along because DCI knew that they could get media outlets to unwittingly distribute their propaganda.

And at the end of the day, it's still considered good PR for all parties involved - Exxon got their point out to millions of viewers, DCI got paid, and ABC/WSJ/Slashdot did a good job of uncovering the "truth" of the situation, which pleases their readers and viewers just as much as any other story.

All of this is just an elaborate game to get you to view an anti-Gore advertisement.

Sad that this is how the media works today.

Re:The real troubling thing...

[cowboy76Spain]

In reality, the point is mocking about Gore and his ideas to make people thing that they ideas are ridiculous just because they come from him. Like when Charles Darwin was caracterized as a monkey when people started fighting the Evolution theory; it was easier to discredit Darwin with those jokes than rebating the scientific arguments.

Re:The real troubling thing...

[D. Book]

Exxon got their point out to millions of viewers, DCI got paid, and ABC/WSJ/Slashdot did a good job of uncovering the "truth" of the situation, which pleases their readers and viewers just as much as any other story.

Whether that's true or not, I see a deeper effect that works to serve their interests. These sorts of stories reinforce the cynicism people have about politics, which instead of getting more ordinary people to demand their voices be heard, has lead to a disengagement from the political process. The younger generation particularly seem to respond to politics with sarcasm or a helpless attitude - things can't be changed, it's pointless to try (though a possible subtext is that this is a hedonistic generation giving itself an excuse to focus on more selfish pursuits). By contrast, corporations are overwhelmingly engaged, with a record number of lobbyists involved in the policy making process.

In other words, it's turned out that it's in the interests of the establishment to encourage public cynicism about politics. Paradoxically, efforts ostensibly intended to "open the public's eyes" can result in more people looking the other way.

Greed knows no bounds.

[brian0918]

"Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing." -- Enron trader, on the California fires

"Can you smell money?!?!?!" -- Jack Abramoff

"People of YouTube, I am one of you, believe my message: Facts are boring, therefore Al Gore is lying, QED. Watch more cool videos, and ignore reality... Just keep filling those tanks!" --toutsmith

I'm not saying Al Gore is completely correct, but at least I'm not hiding an agenda.

Re:Politicians lying to people? No, just Republica

[Pantero Blanco]

The way I see it, each party is as bad as the other. One's just better at it than the other one. Both try to exploit human characteristics in order to gain and hold power.

"Look at these poor people being oppressed! If you let us do X, thereby strengthening our power, we'll help them!"
"You're being oppressed! If you let us do X, thereby strengthening our power, we'll help you!"

Variations on these lines have been used by both the Left and the Right for decades. They've probably been used for millenia, whenever there has been a political divide. The "oppressed people that need saving" are generally actually being oppressed, but the result is always more power for the government, in the form of increased taxes, more spy powers, or laws that serve their ends.

Will the real photo please stand up?

[Anonymous Coward]

""Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films.""

Can You Tell Which Photos Are Real?
Take these quizzes to see how well you can spot digital tampering

Horrible movie anyhow

[noamsml]

Instead of making anything resembling a valid argument countering those in "an inconvenient truth", they resort to trying to discredit Al Gore by telling people it's "uncool" to be too intelligent and politically proactive, and that people should submit to brainless mass entertainment instead.

I'm aware of the psychological roots of this method, but I still find it detestable. Instead of arguing like an adult, the oil firms reduce themselves to the political equivalent of taunting the guy who gets high grades and/or is knowledgeable about many subjects because he's a "nerd".

Come on, oil companies, argue bravely and responsibly. If you think Gore is wrong, show us the proof. Don't just close your ears and shout "la la la la, I'm not listening!"

Re:Horrible movie anyhow

[Carewolf]

Where the did the grand parent paint the oil companies as "pure evil". He asked them to argue their point instead of making ad-homin attacks. The best defense here of course is that the oil sector in general sponsors "research", and that it is only oil-company fan-boys who makes stupid videos like this and South Park's manbearpig episode.

Unfortunately this news story if correct disproves that defense.

Re:Horrible movie anyhow

[clambake]

Come on, oil companies, argue bravely and responsibly. If you think Gore is wrong, show us the proof. Don't just close your ears and shout "la la la la, I'm not listening!"

It's not that THEY think Gore is wrong, they KNOW he is right. It's that they want YOU to think he is wrong. Otherwise it makes no sense not to just lay the fact smackdown on him from the start. This kind of thing is just to "convince" people who are already sort of in the mood to be contrary anyway who will then go and make a lot of noise and thus turn the debate into, "Oh, don't worry, it's just those two crackpot extrememist groups at it again... Boy it's hot, pass me another gin and gasoline please".

Re:Horrible movie anyhow

[vought]

I could point out issues like the oil companies are making only 9 cents per gallon of profit which would put them in lower area's of margin with industry

Yeah. I mean, how many other industries make only nine cents per unit profit, while selling hundreds of millions of units a week?

Oh - and your little oil industry pity party forgot one thing - there are many, many products made from oil. Fuel is one of the less profitable products per volume, but it is profitable - most other products made from petrochemicals have far higher rates of profit for the oil companies - but no product makes them more money than fuel.

I fucking hate people who throw little pity parties for the poor people in the petrochemical industry who make nine cents a gallon on every single gallon of fuel every single person in the world uses. I mean, that fuel is only necessary for, uh, everything. Getting to work. Getting food on the table. Getting ANYTHING.

Poor bastards only making nine cents every time some H2-driving idiot goes 8 miles.

Poor folks in the oil industry only making $2.00 every time you fill up. Except they actually making another ten-twelve cents per gallon, because in many cases, they own the franchise the fuel is sold at.

Poor oil companies! What will they ever do? How about diversifying, and spending those nine cents per gallon on finding a way to put themselves out of business?

But that's too hard. So the ExxonMobil CEO goes home worth 400 million at retirement (with all six chins and bad tooth). It's too tough to back off of the multi-billion dollar quarterly net profit in order to be responsible corporate "citizens". Too tough to ally with humanity instead of the Republicans.

Only nine cents a gallon, hunh? Somebody call the Waaahmbulance - I think I'm gonna cry for the poor souls!

Why is this news?

[DavidinAla]

So what? What's the big deal if someone was paid to produce this? That's just a normal part of politics. I'm a libertarian, so I'm not crazy about Gore OR his GOP opponents, but both of the major parties have partisans who create such material. Leftist organizations such as MoveOn.org try to get people to create buzz about web sites or videos that push their point of view. What's so surprising (or wrong) about some right-wing organization or person doing the same? It's just another attempt to get an opposing point of view into public consciousness. The fact that it was done anonymously on YouTube makes is smarter.

With that said, I think it's very poorly done. I'm not talking about the amateurish production values, but rather the weak (and unfunny) content. I'm a skeptic on global warming, but the piece just isn't effective in lampooning Gore.

David

Re:Why is this news?

[WiFiBro]

The big deal here is the dishonesty.

Trying to make it look as if there is a grassroot movement.

It's like the prefab letters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.st m) from soldiers in Iraq, in local newspapers.

It's like producing thousands of letters-from-the-public to look to be genuinely written by granny's. ("In 2001, the Los Angeles Times accused Microsoft of astroturfing when hundreds of similar letters were sent to newspapers voicing disagreement with the United States Department of Justice and its antitrust suit against Microsoft. The letters, prepared by Americans for Technology Leadership, had in some cases been mailed from deceased citizens or nonexistent addresses. [3]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)

It's like writing that Indians will be oh so happy with GMO cotton (http://www.newkerala.com/news3.php?action=fullnew s&id=31418), while it failed and ruined poor farmers (http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6737).

That's LYING and CHEATING for profit. That's the problem.

Re:Why is this news?

[hawkeesk8]

The big deal here is that campaigns on MoveOn *ARE* grassroots campaigns. They are by real people and organizations *NOT* for-profit businesses! It corrupts democracy.

Re:Why is this news?

[Guuge]

The only thing that's really shocking is that people on the 'global warming is real' side think that the people who disagree with them are 100% dupes, and/or manipulative and evile types.

Okay... and how did you reach this conclusion? I've seen Gore's movie and I can assure you that it does not accuse you personally of being manipulative. Of course, when a Republican PR firm releases a video that poses as an amateur work and makes personal attacks against Gore and says that everyone who agrees with him is an idiot, it's only logical to assume that the firm is being manipulative. Do you disagree?

Re:Why is this news?

[WiFiBro]

There are valid reasons people look at it that way.

Have a look at a climate summit and see the so-called grassroot organisations with the there-ain't-any-human-influence glossy folders, then do some research and find out that they are frontgroups of the oil industry.

I'm more in the genetic world than in the climate scene, and in this world it is SO common that pro-GM sounds turn out to be astroturf. Recent example:

+ INDUSTRY FUNDED LOBBY GROUP IN CURITIBA
Among the pro-biotech lobby groups active in Curitiba, Brazil, at the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety meeting and the Convention on Biological Diversity, was the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) - a pro-GM lobby which fielded over 40 representatives, mostly picked from the developing world and trained and scripted by PRRI, to promote identical goals to those of industry. Although PRRI poses as the voice of public sector researchers, its leading lights have close links to the biotech industry which is also among PRRI's financial backers, as is the US Grains Council, which represents the interests of US producers and exporters of GM crops.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6336
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6356

Or what about the staging of African 'independent' scientists in favour of GMO?

There are even trainings in astroturf:
In Australia they actually train people to set up fake grassroot organisations.
http://www.overlandexpress.org/183_wilson.html

The organisation this whole topic started with, who seems to be behind the (really bad) video, organises fake grassroot stuff: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Gro up

Again and again, such firms need to be closed

[unity100]

This is not 'public relations' or not 'lobbying' - this is PAID propaganda. And this particular one, is what is actually lying about some person to demean him/her - the owners of this firm need to be sued, and to hell that is, and should be expelled from public life.

This is NOT democracy. Anyone who tells that this is democracy, are probably other paid propagandists.

YouTube search

[Null Nihils]

If you submit this search on YouTube, you'll also see the following counter-submissions:

Re: Al Gore's Penguin Army
Al Gore's Penguin Army - Propaganda
'Al Gore's Penguin Army' Misuses Linux Mascot!

CMD vs DCI?

[andphi]

"They want it to look like this came from someone who really believes this, who is really critical of Al Gore and global warming," Farsetta said.

There's an interesting assumption here: that the people criticizing Al Gore believe what he has to say but don't want to admit it - that Big Oil, Big Business, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, etc. are lying when they say that they don't think "global warming" is happening. Or alternately, that only the "little people" can have valid opinions on the subject.,/p>

How does that make sense? If I, as an average citizen, espouse the opinion "Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard", I am being honest, but once I do something like rise to the presidency of my company or amass more than a million dollars in personal net worth, suddenly a statement like "I think Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard" is disingenuous?

Re:CMD vs DCI?

[Peyna]

If I, as an average citizen, espouse the opinion "Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard", I am being honest, but once I do something like rise to the presidency of my company or amass more than a million dollars in personal net worth, suddenly a statement like "I think Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard" is disingenuous?

Because the average citizen is a disinterested party. The head of a company that pumps billions of tons of carbon into the air (directly or indirectly) has a lot more to lose (short term, we all lose long term) if Al Gore is right.

Re:CMD vs DCI?

[epiphani]

I have a challenge for you.

Provide me with -ONE- peer reviewed article that says that global warming isnt taking place.

Also - I've done some research on this - of the vocal "scientists" that argue against global warming, all but one that I've read about was or is on the payroll of big oil. That one scientist that isnt - argues against everything. He still argues that smoking doesnt cause cancer.

Re:CMD vs DCI?

[radtea]

You're joking, right? I'd estimate 99% of the replies to this article on Slashdot are people with pre-formed hard-boiled views who are just pushing their side or looking for people who agree with them.

Perhaps English is not your first language. This is one of those subtle aspects of English that give non-native-speakers quite legitimate fits.

"Dis-interested" in this context means that you do not have a financial interest in a given position.

The CEO of a company that is embedded in the hydrocarbon economy--an oil, coal or automobile company, to name but a few examples--has an interest in convincing people that global warming is nothing to worry about, because their company's profits and the CEO's fat bonus and golden handshake depends on it.

The average /. poster has no such interest. Even those of us, like me, who are heavily invested in the stock market, are mostly smart enough to be well-diversified, and therefore not hugely exposed to a downturn in the fosil energy sector.

"Dis-interested" does not mean "has no opinion." It means, "has no non-rational (financial , religious or similar) reason for pushing a particular opinion over others."

Manbearpig

[Barbarian]

I see that Manbearpig features in this video. The Southpark people should sue.

This PROVES global warming is REAL!

[Anonymous Coward]

It costs money to take down demagogues backed by the high net worth mavens of the political Left. Am I supposed to care if companies servicing the Oil & Gas industries lead the charge against those who would tax my gasoline, regulate the size of my automobile, subject the U.S. to international treaties biased toward the developing world and throw barriers in front of new domestic exploration and production? Am I supposed to favor spending my own money directly advocating my interests? I'd rather the concentrated economic powers with a stake in servicing ME as a consumer jump in and wrestle the hypocritical left so I don't have to.

well...

[spongman]

Gore may well be a boring old fart, but these images are pretty interesting...

Re:well...

[Abcd1234]

How many times does it have to be said? The fact that the earth is warming is not, by itself, without precedent. It's the *rate* at which the earth is warming that's so alarmingly unusual.

Even wierder: The Megaphone Desktop Toolbar

[Animats]

There are wierder online PR things. See the Megaphone Desktop Toolbar. This is a piece of software designed to pump up pro-Israel responses in online polls and blogs. The toolbar pops up "alerts" when some central site sends them out. Nothing new there. But when it tells the user about a poll, the options are to vote their way, automatically, or not to vote at all. Site-specific scripts do the voting for you. Cute.

It is supposedly distributed on behalf of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That's a new development - government sponsored adware. But that may be a fake endorsement. The "gyius.org" site itself has a "cloaked domain", and the "standwithus.org" site with the endorsement has phony domain registration info. There's no real contact info for either. There's an EULA with no real company name, and mention of a remote update capability. So this may be some clever scheme to get people to install adware/spyware.

Somebody in the security business or the press really should chase this down. There's been an article in The Globe and Mail, but it's not about the technology.

Au contraire...

[cowboy76Spain]

If the article was just a link to the video, your post would be true. Someone would click the link, see the video and think that it was funny and (at a subconscient level) see Gore as a political who cannot be trusted (because the depiction of the video gets to the mind, even if realizing it is a joke, because it shows that people does not like him and are very vocal about it).

But if you link to this video while telling the whole story, then the user does not see a video mocking Gore, he/she sees a video created to deceive them, created by a firm and falsely posted as Jhon Doe... as the receptiveness of the people changes, the thing that they see differs completely.

Missing the obvious...

[Junta]

If we are playing the whole intellectual property game (which we conveniently like to do when someone we *don't* like pulls this stuff), did they:
-Get the permission of DC to use the likeness of 'The Penguin' in making over Al Gore?
-Get the permission of Marvel for using X-Men 3 imagery?

So they managed to rip off the Linux logo, and both of the major comic publishers, they really wanted to piss geeks off...

DCI also runs Tech Central Station

[Anonymous Coward]

DCI also runs Tech Central Station, a website frequently referred to by Slashdot and its readers. DCI's client list includes AT&T, Intel, Microsoft, and many others. According to their own website, they specialize in "Corporate Grassroots Campaigns" and "Internet Communications and Mobilization". They helped the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry and now this astroturf attack on Gore. To TCS' credit its not like they hide who owns them.

The lesson is, be skeptical. Don't trust someone or somebody unless they give you a good reason to do so. Don't trust me - click the links above.

Re:Politicians lying to people? No, just Republica

[LordKazan]

and yet that assessment is inaccurate, because I've never seen the democrats do things just for the sake of power.

Re:Disclosure?

[Trailer Trash]

I keep hearing that statistic about his use of air fuel, but should he take a rowboat to China?

No, he should take a commercial flight. A 747 is very efficient - getting about 100 miles/gallon/passenger, definitely as good as my minivan at literally 10 times the speed. Al decides to fly around in a private jet which is getting a fraction of that milage per passenger. He has choices, his choice is to use tons more fuel for his convenience.

Your argument here is what we call a "false dichotomy". His choices are more than "private jet" or "rowboat".

As for the "internet" quote, the snopes article is obviously written by someone with a bias. I was watching when he said it, and his exact words were "I took the initiative in creating the internet." I did a spit-take; it was one of the most brazen lies ever concocted by a politician.

The excuse that his supporters use is that he's claiming that he supported congressional initiatives to fund the internet in the early days, which he did. But the phrase "I took the initiative" means "I did this". You cannot "take" a congressional initiative, you can only create or support such an initative. Look at the word "initiative" at dictionary.com. Al used definition 2, his supporters claim that he meant definition 3.

Re:Justified?

[PieSquared]

Also, Michael Moore isn't the democratic party. the GOP is the republican party. This story is "The GOP is spreading propoganda" not "one republican is spreading propoganda" Big difference.

WSJ Article of the 3rd was more informative.

[Herschel Cohen]

The ABC News item cited could not even be ranked as a tepid follow up to the print article that appeared a day earlier. Moreover, a great deal of interesting facts were left out of the linked version, e.g. there were Google ads directing viewers to view the animation that suddenly disappeared when the source of this video seemed to be disclosed. Furthermore, Google is not disclosing the source of the ads. One is strongly made to wonder about the possible tight relationship to parties more interested in propagandizing their views than simple reliance upon facts. Note this was all in the Wall Street Journal original piece but strikingly absent from the latter TV News exposition.

The WSJ has some great writers, just skip the editorials and art reviews.

Thanks DCI!

[AlXtreme]

Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I hadn't heard about An Inconvenient Truth before. Thanks to DCI and the youtube trailer, I think this is one movie worth watching, if only due to Katrina and the massive heatwaves over the US and Europe this summer.

Re:Disclosure?

[Ragica]

Try googling carbon-neutral gore, and hang your carbon filled head in shame. The man is more consistant and does more to act on his convictions than probably anyone here. (Of course if you still are buying the "invented the internet" misquote there's not much chance you're looking for real information.)

One thing I'm curious about though. What do you people who spout this non-sense think Gore's motivation is? Trying to drum up business for his fat-cat environmentalist friends that he's in the pocket of? Surreptitiously trying to destroy the United States, covert operative for The Terrorists that he is? Ah no, i remember now. Sorry, I'd forgotten the 2000 election smear campaign. He's just simply a raving lunatic (raving in a wooden, personality-less sort of way, that is, of course).

Sigh. Go see the movie. At least you'll have some idea what you're talking about then. (Of course it will do no good to mention that scientists, all except the one prominently being funded by the oil companies, seem to think the movie was pretty much, with just a few quibbles, completely accurate.)

Well, sorry to have bothered you. I'll let you get back to your stem-cell research now.

Re:Republican(?) PR Firm.

[WiFiBro]

Also a simple check on the reliable as ever internet makes the republicanity of DCI pretty clear.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Gro up

Someone should consult a lawyer...

[abb3w]

The non-comercial nature of this video, and the way in which the trademark is used is unlikely to create that sort of impression, so no trademark violation here.

While IAmNotALawyer, I believe that if (as alleged) the video was produced as paid propoganda, even if the distribution was non-commercial it would then be hard to argue in court that the use was non-commercial.

The image is also protected by copyright but the copyright owner says: "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks." The key bit here being "if someone asks".

So (my puckish side chortles), if one calls the firm rumored to have done the work and ask them if they used this image in the video, it would seem they must either admit to doing so (which they apparently are loathe to do), or deny it... violating the use license and (ergo) copyright. That could be a problem....

Re:Disclosure?

[4D6963]

I totally agree with you, however it seems that making people feel responsible-guilty for the global warming is even cheaper that building nuclear power plants and it gives the opinion the illusion of having found a solution to the problem.

Hey, let's buy a Hybrid car to make ourselves feel better about that problem and let's not even pay attention to the fact that in our country we use coal power plants as some countries use nothing but nuclear power plants and wind mills.

the thing was terrible

[nEoN nOoDlE]

I'd like to know how the PR firm infiltrated all of these blogs to even get the movie seen. I saw it on Fark and when I watched it, I was wondering why the hell the thing even showed up there. It's technically awful, it's not funny, the pacing is slower than An Inconvenient Truth (which is hard to do for a 3 minute movie!), and basically didn't have any merit to it whatsoever besides the message that Al Gore is boring. Why would it be posted to all of these popular sites?

Re:Playing God and the Devil

[b0s0z0ku]

Adding another $4 at each pit stop isn't just robbery, it is rape.

To make matters even more decetful, these rapist advertise everywhere, then argue that if we don't like it we can walk to work.

The oil companies aren't forcibly raping us. We're bending over, spreading our cheeks, and taking it without lube from them!

We drive unnecessarily huge, inefficient cars. We live in comparatively big houses which are often poorly designed (read: no passive solar heat in winter, no convection ventilation in summer) even if well insulated. We oppose the construction of new nuke and hydro power plants: not in my backyard! We commute to work by car from 40 or 50 miles away. We don't complain when our employers put up a new headquarters in the middle of nowhere. We haven't electrified our railroads in order to move freight without using oil.

This isn't rape. This is a consensual masochistic activity on the part of the US.

-b.

Re:The oil companies love Al Gore.

[Jeremi]

Al Gore talks the talk but by no means does he walk the walk.

There are many people out there who 'walk the walk'. However, you are never going to hear from them because they live frugally on their farms and don't have access to the media that Gore does.

Yes, Gore is a politically active member of the American upper class. Like most other members of the American upper class, he uses lots of energy. Unlike them, however, he also works to get the message out about global warming. In return for his hard work, he gets called a hypocrite, while his equally energy-using do-nothing peers all skate by without a second look. No good deed goes unpunished, of course... but I for one am glad that someone with the resources to make a real difference also has to balls to do so -- even if it does mean taking flack from the peanut gallery.

Re:Valid argument? You're kidding!

[meburke]

The reason that this crap works is that most of the citizenry is unable to follow a valid argument, neither on an informal nor formal level. Informally, can you distinguish between the 83 Rhetorical Fallacies? (Read "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by Damer, if it's not too much work. Did you notice the three Rhetorical Fallacies contained in my first sentence?) In his book, "Dumbing Us Down", John Taylor Gatto http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ says that if you picked up a 5th grade book on Rhetoric or Arithmetic from the 1850's, some of the content is equivalent to what is now being withheld until college.

And think about this: Al Gore's movie is built on the same premise; that people are too stupid and/or too lazy to follow rational argument. Another example would be Michael Moore's movie. While he claims that there are no "factual" discrepanciews in his movie, Moore's presentation of relying on out-of-context snippets and arrangements bypasses any rational thought, and promotes a whole movie of ad hominem argument. Moore could be the most successful propagandist since Hermann Goering.

Anyone else see the irony

[contrar1an]

So, Al Gore makes a one-sided movie, pretending to be a documentary. His opponents make a spoof pretending to be a grass roots effort.

Slasdot readers accept the first as "truth". The second one gets slashdot readers up in arms.

What have we _really_ measured by this experiment?

Re:Anyone else see the irony

[eraser.cpp]

Documentaries are not limited to films created by national geographic, they can be (and hundreds are) political.

There are not two sides to scientific fact. Even a minor amount of research on your part will reveal that there is no myth or debate over global warming occuring, and /very/ little over the cause of it. Scientists have since moved on to discuss what to do about it, and the world would benefit from people actually researching the facts instead of spewing baseless doubt over the conclusions they've drawn.

Re:U.S. government corruption: Let's fix it.

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

Democrats and Republicans are in on the mess that our political system is in. It is rather naive and narrow-minded not to acknowledge this.

Changes will have to address the failures of democracy, in its present form, and look at more sane alternatives such as decentralized self-government and the over-encroachment of goverment in the daily lives of citizens.

Re:Disclosure?

[Anonymous Coward]

like matching European and Asian fuel efficiency and investing in something other than coal power

Would nuclear power be one of those options? Not according to Al Gore's 2000 Presidential bid (nor Kerry's).

This is what drives me crazy about the DNC. The Democrats will complain like crazy about Global Warming and making a change, but block the technology that could single handedly drop emissions in the country more than anything else.

But then my alternative is the Republicans who see no need to worry about CO2 emissions whatsoever. But they will build nuclear power plants.

So who will have a greater effect on reducing CO2? Right now I'm leaning towards the Republican side because economics will reduce oil consumption, and we will have nuclear plants. With the Democrats we would have better cars, but nothing would be done about the huge amounts of CO2 emitted by coal and gas plants.

Theoretically with both the RNC and DNC we could have the best of both worlds. But in reality, we get the worst. (sigh)

False equivalence, and you know it

[dangermouse]

Gore's movie had his name all over it. He's been completely open about his motivations and his support, and sourced the claims his movie made. If it's one-sided, it's because the subject matter is factual and he's not lying.

These people pretend to be someone else while they snipe at Gore and his movie. They don't debate or argue his claims, they don't find fault with his methods or supporters-- it's pure assassination, and they do it from hiding.

If you're sure you want to draw a lesson here, please do. I suspect you're too busy cheerleading to do so.

Re:False equivalence, and you know it

[dangermouse]

Your point was that there is some sort of equivalence between Gore's actions and DCI's actions. I understood that, and now you've reiterated it. Guess what? You're still wrong: There is no such equivalence.

Gore's "one-sided view of the 'facts', presented as truth" was an argument. That's how you make an honest argument: You draw a conclusion from facts, you present the facts that support your conclusion along with your sources for them, and you do it under your own name and with your own motivations on the table.

Flinging snarky personal insults while pretending to be someone else is not argument, and it's not honest.

Re:False equivalence, and you know it

[dangermouse]

Yes, I'm asserting that Gore's movie is not propaganda.

When you base your argument on facts, and you present the facts that support your argument, and you provide the sources for those facts, and you do it under your own name, you're not just propagandizing.

When you take baseless jabs at the other side, without bothering to argue the facts or the other side's reasoning, well, then you are just propagandizing.

It takes either shameless disingenuousness or ethical bankruptcy to claim that Gore's methods and DCI's are the same. Whichever afflicts you, I hope you get over it. I just wanted to make sure that your post didn't go unrefuted, so I'm done here.

Hello Mr Orwell? Call for you on line 3!

[glomph]

I love the head-in-the-sand morons who deny reality. Just keep repeating the Big Lie, like our moron-led government does now about so many things, like the WMD idiocy. And "9/11" has gone from a tragedy for a few thousand people, to an excuse to bankrupt the country, discard the US Constitution and Amendments, and move the USA from the most-admired to the most-loathed country on Earth. This is not just bombast, I travel overseas about half the time, if you go around starting wars for no reason, and deny obvious facts like manmade global warming, people tend to mistrust/hate you. What a surprise!

War is Peace. Hate is Love. Oil Companies are a LOT richer than they were 5 years ago. All is well.

Can a climte change skeptic answer

[SEMW]

I dislike arguing against a position unless I completely understand that point of view (Hell, if I don't completely understand a point of view, how do I know it's not correct?).

So can one of the climate change skeptics around here tell me exactly which stage of the following logical chain it is you disagree with? Who knows, you might even convert me if your argument is convincing.

One. It is fact that burning fossil fuels gives out carbon dioxide. The amount can be calculated from the amount of fossil fuels burned. This goes into the atmosphere, and since the rate at which the World's fauna is converting this back into Oxygen is reasonably static (or even decreasing, since we're cutting down vast amounts of the rainforest every year), the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will rise.

Independant confirmation of this is given by...

Alternative One. The fact that carbon dioxide levels are rising has been measured many times by laboratories around the globe (e.g. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/88/Mauna_ Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png for one example). This rising is far above the usual cyclic fluctations due to ice age cycles (see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbon _Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png).

Two. It is fact that greater levels of carbon dioxide lead to greater trapping of the Sun's energy. This is settled science, and can be independantly confirmed by anyone with a cylinder of carbon dioxide, a temperature probe, and an inquiring mind.

Three. Greater trapping of the Sun's energy will lead to a reasonably predictable rise in global average temperature. The calculation is not hard once you know the relevant specific heat capacities. Again, should the logical chain not be enough, there is independant confirmation of this from temperature stations around the globe, which fairly closely matches predictions made using the previous links in the chain (e.g. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/f/f4/Instru mental_Temperature_Record.png).

Four. It is fact that water expands when heated. The calculation is, again, easily performed, and will lead to a rise in sea level, which will cover predictable parts of the world, especially affecting places like Bangladesh (where large areas of the country are less than one meter above sea level). The rise in temperature will also lead to the glaciers receding, and higher sea temperatures will also increase the number and severity of hurricanes. Ocean currents will also be affected, severely changing the climate in parts of the world which depend on them.

Climate change sceptics are happy to look at the predictions of that last point and say that it's rubbish. But when I look at the points, I see a reasonably watertight chain of logic. So which point are you disputing?

Re:Can a climte change skeptic answer

[contrar1an]

I will take a shot :) I will respond with questions of my own.

1. Where does the CO2 come from? We know our cars produce it. But, in what proportion compared to breathing, forest fires, cows, etc. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) says that CO2 causes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect. They also say:

"There is considerable debate ast to how much human activity can be attributed to the Greenhouse effect, since at most, mankind contributes only 3% of the total increase in atmospheric CO2" In other words, the CO2 is rising, but 97% of the rise isn't related to human activity.

2. Where does the CO2 go? We know trees, grass, etc consume it. But, in what proportion to algae, etc. In the end, I wonder what the net loss of CO2 consumption is from deforestation. I couldn't find anything on this one.

3. It isn't realistic that we will stop driving, flying, and using electricity any time soon. What is a reasonable expectation of CO2 emission reduction?

You didn't blame the oil companies, but I've seen it as a common theme in this thread. So, forgive me for adding it to this reply. But, the oil companies aren't to blame (conceding for a moment that blame is to be had). It's us. I drive, I fly, I use electricity. And so do the rest of you. Blaming the oil companies is just a cop out.

Why Not?

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

...I mean, Al Gore was behind that science spoof, 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Re:This was less interesting when I submitted it..

[Russ Nelson]

Um, about your signature "Libertarians are really properly called propertyarians and when push comes to shove value material things over liberty." First, the term is "propertarians", and second, you reveal your ignorance. Libertarians value property rights because you need ownership of things to have freedom. On the most basic expression of the term "property rights", you own your own body. If you didn't, then somebody else would, and you would be their slave. The next most basic expression is that you own the food you eat. If you didn't, then you would be paying somebody else rent on the food that you eat and .... you wouldn't exactly be a slave, but you wouldn't be very free either. The next most basic expression is that you own anything you can trade your time for (that is to say, you own your own productive output). Again, without property rights, you have no freedom.

Do you perhaps now understand that propertarianism exists not to advance material values, but instead to advance liberty?

Helps with a "grassroots" image?

[jpardey]

Perhaps the whole "We need your help" is more a way to make people think they are involved in the political process, rather than a fundraising method. Of course corprate donations are much bigger, and tax dollars support some political activities (or do they? I might be wrong). Almost like rich musicians pretending to "keep it real," these appeals for aid would make parties seem more homely.

Also, who knows, maybe the video was put up by Gore to increase publicity... but I highly doubt it.

Re:Disclosure?

[slightlyspacey]

It's quite evident what Gore's motivation is. Al Gore's motivation is whatever is best for Al Gore. The man is a politician. He craves power. It's just that simple. Mr. Gore has not hesitated in the past to use every means available to him to suppress scientific dialog that he doesn't personally agree with (See Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking PDF files for more examples of the politicization of science)

From the article:

As Jonathan Adler wrote in the Washington Times on July 27, 1994:

"Concurrent with Mr. Lancaster's attack on Mr. Singer, Mr. Gore himself led a similar effort to discredit the respected scientist. Mr. Gore reportedly contacted 60 Minutes and Nightline to do stories on Mr. Singer and other opponents of Mr. Gore's environmental policies. The stories were designed to undermine the opposition by suggesting that only raving ideologues and corporate mouthpieces could challenge Mr. Gore's green gospel. The strategy backfired. When Nightline did the story, it exposed the vice president's machinations and compared his activities to Lysenkoism: The Stalinist politicization of science in the former Soviet Union."

In fact, the 2/24/94 Nightline edition which Adler refers to included a segment-end wherein the host, Ted Koppel, said (jaw-agape emphasis mine):

"There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century, that he is resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis."

.......

In an interview with Mike Miliard of The Phoenix, he recalled:

"Gore would run star-chamber hearings and invite the heads of funding agencies while he would try to get scientists [who doubted climate change's severity] to recant. . . . Everyone in the eld knows [that] when the funding went up to $2 billion a year under Bush the elder, that money didn't come because people thought climate was a wonderful thing. It came because of alarm."

Lindzen himself explains how "global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence" in his 4/12/06 article, "Climate of Fear":

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

So, effectively, Gore's intimidation tactics over the course of the last decade and a half have achieved his desired goal through a menacing combination of politics, words and financial control. At a glance, it would certainly appear that a significant number of American scientists have been molded into obedient, PC puppets.

.....

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I do agree that Mr. Gore along along with a myriad of other politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are men of principle. The one principle they cherish and have indeed adopted as their own was first espoused by H.L. Mencken:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed----and hence clamorous to be led to safety----by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

I studied and researched global warming as a student some 12 years before Al Gore discovered it. At least then, the scientists and researchers could admit that their results were inconclusive or even ran counter to conventional wisdom in this arena without fear of losing their funding. It was, simply, because it was not an emotional politicized panic button issue the way it is today.

As

Re:Can a climate change skeptic answer?

[SEMW]

>I for one find the whining about fossil fuel burning and climate change to be the same sort of sad, illogical drone as that emanating from Kansas on the topic of evolution.

In this, I entirely agree with you. However, you seem to be a bit confused as to which way round the analogy works. In Kansas, all the scientists are united on one side (evolution) against those who have an external reason for disbelieving it (the Bible doesn't support it). With the climate change debate, all the scientists are united on one side (climate change exists) against those who have an external reason for disbelieving it (the oil companies will make less profit if people start to try and combat it).

Don't believe me that all scientists are united on the side that it's climate change exists? You don't have to. Pick up ANY scientific journal -- Nature or Science are rather dense for non-scientists, so try New Scientist or Scientific American or any one of countless others. Attend scientific conferences. Go to lectures. Look at the graphs. Read the reports produced by any of the major scientific bodies, either US-based or international. Or the G8. Or the UN. They all say the same thing.

>The inability for the reader to understand the science means that magical forces must be at play.

The ability of someone to igonore all debate, evidence, and logic in favour of mechanically asserting that they are right certainly exists, but is more psycological than magical.

The simple fact is the sun is a variable star. The earth has been both hotter and colder than it is currently, all without the intervention of man.

True, it's called the ice ages (incidentally, it's not yet considered settled that the cause of them is the variability of the sun). However, the problem is that the current changes are far above the usual cyclic fluctations due to ice age cycles (see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbon _Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png). Ice age CO2 fluctuations are historically between 180 and 270 ppmv; it is now 385. As you'd have known if you'd read my original post and at least attempted to answer it, which you clearly haven't.

Lets remember that you get what you pay for. Pay for a bunch of yes men academics to produce papers saying what you want isn't the same as real science.

Who on Earth is paying scientists to produce evidence showing that climate change exists? No-one stands to benefit in the least. Are these strange people paying the entire, vast scientific community around the world? Is this some sort of global consipracy?

Don't be ridiculous. The academic papers are being produced by scientists trying to bring the issue into the wider understanding. If you want an example of people paying to produce material on a side of the issue, I suggest you consult TFA.

The one thing you still seemingly refuse to do is answer my original post. In case you can't find it, it's still at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193278&cid=158 57240

You can take your economic theory and...

[mrraven]

...shove it where the sun don't shine

And I call bullshit on the fundamental premise of your post, there is a difference between "owning" (which is really just existing) your body and the very basic housing you need to survive and "property" which can be unlimited in it's extent while other people suffer in great misery. Native Americans for example "owned" their own bodies, tools, and houses with no idea whatsoever of the abstraction of a possible infinite accumulation of property.

Economists in my opinion are the rationalizers of the great evil of 10 percent of the U.S. population owning as much as the bottom 40% of the poorest people in the world. Paying people less than a dollar an hour while your have billions as Phil Knight who owns Nike does is evil.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/2KZ5.html

No Phil is not 10,000 times more "productive" than one of his workers in Vietnam who works in stifling hot conditions for 12 hour shifts with few bathroom breaks so she can go back to a tiny shack and a plate of beans and rice.

As far as I'm concerned by providing the intellectual version of spin in fancy charts and statistical analysis that are based on on fundamentally flawed premises economists serve much the same function in society as Nazi propagandists like Goebbels did, i.e. putting a happy face on misery and destruction. And what are some of these false premises?

1. Economics is predicated on the idea of infinite expansion and in fact it's necessary for the economy to function. Clearly this is a fallacy because infinite expansion is not possible on a finite planet. Why is infinite expansion part of economics, because banks when they give out loans by creating a loan account in essence create money out of nothing, and that newly created money must be paid back by expanded production or the whole pyramid scheme of bank financing collapses because banks loan out more money than they have in savings and checking accounts.

2. Currency speculation can expand the money supply without actually creating more productive activity. This in turn leads to bubbles like the Asian financial crisis, the great depression, the dot com bust, and the current perilous housing market are just 4 examples of. Thus fundamental instability in capital financing again leads to great suffering throughout the world.

3. Pure capitalism leads to monopolies which destroy the competition that Adam Smith's self organizing principles of economics are based on. Yet most supply side economic theory does nothing to reign in pernicious monopolies and their distorting effects on society. Do I really need to talk about Microsoft here on slashdot? Look up Bechtel, Haliburton, Shell in Nigeria, Coke in India, Union Carbide in Bhopal, Nike in Vietnam, and when you have read of the great suffering these companies have caused feel free to shove your charts and graphs up your ass.

4. Pure capitalism has no easy way to quantify externalities and thus encourages pollution as long as the pollution doesn't directly damage the property owners own property.

5. Closely related pure capitalism cannot distinguish destructive activity from non destructive activity except through the wild guess of "opportunity cost." Thus for example war by the U.S. and Israel is very profitable for Boeing the Carlyle group and their friends and guess what again causes great suffering in the world. And rebuilding the destroyed societies as vassals of U.S. multinationals is also a "gain" for the GDP.

So if your claim that I made a "typo" is based on some economic terminology I'll pass and use my own terms thanks.

I also recommend you read "The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1887208038/002-02 04872-9747219?v=glance&n=283155

Where a Stanford business school PHD takes down the fundamentally flawed assumptions in contemporary economic theory that underpins the globalist juggernaut.

Re:You can take your economic theory and...

[Russ Nelson]

When you call me "dumbass" THAT is ad-hominem.

So ... do you pass up my offer to buy you an ENTIRE BOOK filled with refutations of your arguments? It's much cheaper for me to buy you a book than spend time teaching Yet Another person basic economics. Let me try teaching you just one thing, to see if there's any hope for you. The reason the economy can expand infinitely in a finite world is because people value things relative to other things. Let's say that I have a USB cable and want an Ethernet cable, and you have an Ethernet cable and want a USB cable. We swap. No new thing has been created. Finite number of atoms. Yet you are more wealthy because you assign a higher value to your new ownership of the USB cable. I am more wealthy because I assign a higher value to my Ethernet cable. We have expanded the economy. Each of us is richer (by a very small amount, of course) and no new atoms have been needed. You can repeat this process forever; the economy expands infinitely in a finite universe.

Double whammy

[aepervius]

Not only this is paid propaganda which, despite being uncovered by some media, will cast some shadow on al gore (first effect) but this will cast a shadow on any future internet grassroot movement (second effect). Call me paranoid but I have the feeling, seeing how the political flows and ebbs are in the USA right now, that this side effect may has well have been sought for... Think about it : eliminating or hindering grassroot campaign can only be a win for both party enabling them to canalise any politic debate toward what they wish (aka : all usual campaign talk directed toward the public) while diverting people from what they don't want to speak about (Irak, erosion of liberty, illegality of of certain governemental action etc....).

The Video

[wdr1]

Not sure why the article doesn't link to the video, but after searching around, found this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI

-Bill

Re:huh?

[NeutronCowboy]

And like a lot of other people, you seem to not be able to grasp the difference between an up-front presentation about things that are happening right and a personal attack where the author is hidden.

It is quite clear that you have no idea what propaganda actually is, and therefore simply label everything propaganda. Congratulations - you're at best an idiot, and at worst, morally bankrupt (to pick up the terminology of another poster). Yup, this was an insult. Yup, it was who me said it. Wanna take a wild guess and say what the difference between my post, "An Inconvenient Truth" and this little YouTube video is?

get a clue

[m874t232]

My point is that neither side has a monopoly on being good or being evil.

No, historically and over the long run, neither label, "Republican" or "Democrat", has had a monopoly on being good or evil: evil people, corrupt people, and incompetent people are attracted to power, whatever label it happens to fall under. It just happens to be that in 2006, they seem to have taken over the Republican party: incompetent foreign policy, abusing the tax system for social engineering, vast expansions of the federal bureaucracy, costly and ineffective wars, violations of human rights, intrusive government, bad economic policies, cronyism, and widespread instituionalized corruption, to name just a few. This administration and this Congress are one of the worst we have ever had in US history, and the damage they are doing to the US will be felt for decades to come.

And if you're saying "no, no, the other party doesn't agree with me on ____", you should find out why. If you can't find a reason why someone disagrees with you, save they're evil, you really need to open your mind.

I don't know about the GP, but it's no mystery why Republicans disagree with me: the party is dominated by people who are incompetent, power hungry, and, at times, simply corrupt. And since they have excellent PR people working for them, plus wealthy funders to pay for PR, they can convince enough people to vote for them to remain in power. The real problem isn't that there are evil Republicans or that they have power, but that people like you are stupid enough to vote for these kinds of people. I mean, assuming you're somewhere in the 40k-200k income bracket, you're so dumb that you let the current government talk out out of many thousands of dollars that they collect in taxes from you and funnel to their political buddies, and you don't even notice it.

Republicans brought an end to slavery in America.

Yeah, if only anybody could bring those Republicans back. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are the antithesis of that; they have simply latched on to the name in order to give their agenda an acceptable veneer.

Re:get a clue

[qurk]

I can't speak for the original poster, but a lot of people don't vote because the issues that both parties run on are in general, retarded. In some states you are lucky to have a candidate who stands up against the racist Marijuana Prohibition of like 70-80 years ago, and in fact both the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate both support the completely hideous policy. So who is dumb? Voting for someone who doesn't really have a moral leg to stand or, or say voting for someone of whom, of like 40,000 issues you may agree with him on 21,000. As for the other policies, voting for him or her is actually against your best interest. I feel that the current "one vote, one candidate" system is fundamentally outdated and absurd considering that you end up putting someone into office who just does whatever the Republican or Democratic party wants, not neccessarily voting for what you or the other people who voted him in wanted, or even on the issues they said they were supporting during the election.

In any case, I may be wrong, but didn't more people vote for Kerry than for any other presidential candidate before the 2004 election? It just ended up that more people voted for Bush in this election. Bush won fair and square, but I don't think that making a broad general attack on Democrats, calling them stupid for not getting out and voting really helps the debate any. I'm not one of the people calling Democrats the same as Republicans, I'm just saying both are equally retarded, as is our current system of voting. So do we even have a 50% turnout on voting right now? So if the Republicans put Bush into power again in a "landslide" and a "mandate", that means that what like 26% of the eligable voting base agrees with some of the issues that Republicans claim to care about, and that's a huge mandate. Right.

I mean when you go to a football game and you have all these people in the stadium cheering for the same team, you don't check with the guys sitting next to you to make sure that they are of the same party as you or you hate their guts. IT'S RETARDED TO LUMP 40,000 ISSUES AND SPLIT IT UP INTO 2 PARTIES, BOTH OF WHICH ARE COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT.

Re:get a clue

[Barlo_Mung_42]

The gp was on target but left off one thing. The Republicans have managed to convince a large number of gullible people to vote against their own best interests on "religious" grounds. Now that's dumb.

Re:get a clue

[CAIMLAS]

I don't know about the GP, but it's no mystery why Republicans disagree with me: the party is dominated by people who are incompetent, power hungry, and, at times, simply corrupt. And since they have excellent PR people working for them, plus wealthy funders to pay for PR, they can convince enough people to vote for them to remain in power.

Unlike the bastion of liberal justice, the Democrat party, with stalward heroes like:

- Hillary Clinton, wife of the corrupt ex-President who committed treason for campaign contributions
- Ted Kennedy, drunkard, thief, murderer
- John Kerry, lying hypocrite, war profiteer, politically wed (quite literally), all-around sleaze bag

Need I point out to you that taking things that are not rightfully your's is considered theft, and as this is the modus operandi of the Democrat party (and increasingly so, the Republican party), both are, by definition, "evil"?

Both parties are full of shit. You "my party is better than mine" types make me fucking sick, because they're both pretty fucking bad.

Another will spring up.

[955301]

What do you think Public Relations is? One of the "fathers" of modern day public relations, Edward Bernays wrote a book. It's called.... Propoganda. And the entire context is how to help a company or politician spread their message or product.

It's actually an interesting read: http://militant.org/files/propaganda.pdf. It will only take a couple of days and give you insight into where modern day techniques originated from. Adolf Hitler, the American bacon for breakfast campaign, a lot of things that are popular today are so as a result of this book and this man.

The frontal assault doesn't work reliably on people any more - everyone who wants to be effective any more has to be somewhat manipulative.

Defending the people you wish you were.

[Valdrax]

Even if someone was never able to pay off their debt they were trying to enter the plantation class which was actually a very small number of people. The poor whites defended the slave owners because it was the dream of many people to eventually become a plantation owner.

Boy, take away the racism and slavery, and not that much has changed, has it? Think of all the people up in their ears in debt today, fired from well-paying jobs that were offshored and now working two minimum wage jobs that fiercely oppose progressive taxation and demand flat taxation or consumption taxes or demand an end to estate taxes that will put most of the burden on themselves.

Re:Can a climate change skeptic answer?

[iceperson]

Let me start by saying that I don't think it's climate change skeptics you want to hear from so much as "human induced climate change skeptics." Just because a person doesn't believe that humans are having a significant, or even measurable, impact on global temps does not mean they don't believe that the global temps are rising. "Don't believe me that all scientists are united on the side that it's climate change exists? You don't have to. Pick up ANY scientific journal -- Nature or Science are rather dense for non-scientists, so try New Scientist or Scientific American or any one of countless others." I'm old enough to remember when they are ALL in agreement that we were coming up on a new ice age (way back in the 70's.) "Who on Earth is paying scientists to produce evidence showing that climate change exists? No-one stands to benefit in the least. Are these strange people paying the entire, vast scientific community around the world? Is this some sort of global consipracy?" Are you serious? The more "evidence" there is of global warming the more money is given to "environmentalists". That compounded with the save the whales, newts, bermuda grass, or whatever other FotM endangered species there seems to be that many people who study these fields come into them with is more than enough to bring their results into question as far as a lot of people are concerned. And this is from someone who won't even consider a vehicle that isn't ULEV-rated, never leaves the light on when they leave the room, and goes out of their way to conserve. I want cleaner air/water for its own sake. Believe me, if you can't convince people that clean air/water is a noble enough cause to get them to change their behaviors then you're surely not going to get them to change by simply repeating that it's hotter and it's all our fault.

Re:Hello Mr Orwell? Call for you on line 3!

[fishybell]

Sorry for the slight quibble, but the US hasn't been the "most-admired" country around for quite some time. It was most admired really only from the time of the colonies to the advent of slavery. We got a few admiration points post civil war all the way to the second world war. Foreign like of our country waned after that point due to foreign policies of various administrations. By the late 80's and into the 90's we were seen by most countries as arrogant towards the rest of the world and ignorant of others problems. Whether this loathing was deserved or not is debatable, but the viewpoints are well documented throughout history.