Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
An Inconvenient Concert Series
Drudge links to a Financial Times story about Al Gore's soon-to-be-announced plans to host a series of linked concerts in July that will call attention to global warming. The organizers
are promising a line-up of artists to "dwarf" that of the Live8 and Live Aid concerts, thought to be branded under the name "SOS".
One person close to the event said yesterday: "The talent involved is just exponentially bigger because the issue itself is bigger.
"Live Aid was about asking people to stump up money, this is about effecting systemic change.
"The aim is not just to drive awareness but to get people to take action."
These actions are likely to include personal pledges to reduce emissions, for instance by using energy efficient equipment or flying less.
It will indeed be momentous if rock stars pledge to use EnergyStar products and curtail their jet-setting. And convince Lemmy to change Motorhead's name to Hybridhead.
The last big rockapalooza, Live 8, in which pop stars told people to push governments to raise taxes for foreign aid, didn't go over well. For more on that, go here and here.
The greatest rock cause of all time? Hands down, it's Ramone$ Aid, a.k.a. Hands Across Your Face:
|2.9.07 @ 1:45PM|#
"It will indeed be momentous if rock stars pledge to use
EnergyStar products and curtail their jet-setting."
Nice? Yes. Momentous? Not really.
Even though rock stars and other jet-setters produce large amounts
of greenhouse gasses per capita, their exploits amount to a drop in
the overall bucket.
The majority of the gasses are produced through energy consumption
for run-of-the-mill industrial, transportation, construction, and
home-use operations. It is through changes in these areas that
greenhouse emissions will be brought under control.
If Al Gore's activism causes a single power plant to reduce its CO2
emissions by 1%, he will have more than made up for every mole of
CO2 he has ever caused to be emitted.
|2.9.07 @ 1:47PM|#
You are getting information from the Drudge Report? Are you serious? It is just a link, but you are going there, looking for things to blog about? I come back to reason.com every once in a while, but seem to get scared back away by something like this. Drudge is far from "reason."
|2.9.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Personal pledges to reduce emissions? Sounds like some sort of religious revival meeting.
ed|2.9.07 @ 1:51PM|#
The talent involved is just exponentially bigger because the
issue itself is bigger.
...this is about effecting systemic change.
The aim is not just to drive awareness but to get people to take
action.
I think they got those quotes from Google Cliché Search. This
concert could take self-righteous limousine liberalism to a whole
new dizzying, glittering level. Get Obama to speak and there will
be spontaneous orgasms from Boston to Berkely. Coax Babs Streisand
to warble a tune and I myself just might faint.
|2.9.07 @ 1:52PM|#
joe:
So you're not one of these liberals who scold people for driving
SUVs? These Battlecar Galacticas are okay-dokey with you?
|2.9.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Somehow this reminds me of Red Wedge, the leftie Brit-rocker
anti-Thatcher tour from the late '80s. The manager of one of its
primary acts offhandedly described it to me as "rich pop stars for
socialism."
And which rock band led the way with responsible
automobile-emissions policies? Chicago, of course. (Remember, they
started out in 1968 as the Chicago Transit Authority -- until the
real Chicago Transit Authority complained about it.)
|2.9.07 @ 2:08PM|#
"The majority of the gasses are produced through energy
consumption for run-of-the-mill industrial, transportation,
construction, and home-use operations. It is through changes in
these areas that greenhouse emissions will be brought under
control."
I, too look forward to a day when an average person such as myself
must live with mandatory caps on my "carbon footprint" while people
like Serj Tankian, who are smarter, more talented and better
looking than yours truly, are allowed to blast around the country
on private aircraft in order to change people's hearts and minds by
playing B.Y.O.B. at
top volume.
Rock stars. Is there anything they don't know?
Graphite|2.9.07 @ 2:11PM|#
LOL @ Ron Bailey's post. In other news, in turns out the AEI *wasn't* trying to bribe scientists. I'm Shocked! Shocked!
|2.9.07 @ 2:19PM|#
The greatest piece of charity in rock and roll of all time was when one of my friends body-checked an emo kid at a Violent Femmes concert just so he could get me Gordon Gano's guitar pic.
|2.9.07 @ 2:22PM|#
"You are getting information from the Drudge Report?"
Matt,
Please let us know who the "acceptable" information providers
are?
Twerp!
|2.9.07 @ 2:23PM|#
"Personal pledges to reduce emissions? Sounds like some sort of
religious revival meeting."
Appropriately put since environmentalism has become a new religion.
We are expected to accept without questioning. Climatologists who
dare to question the conventional wisdom are threatened with having
their certifications taken from them.
von Laue|2.9.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Hey, the editor's here!
If Al Gore's activism engineers and scientists just doing their
jobs cause power plants to reduce their CO2 emissions by 1%, he
they will have more than made up for every mole of CO2 he has ever
caused to be emitted. done infinitely more good than joe's jackass,
non-stop, intarweb lecturing.
|2.9.07 @ 2:24PM|#
"Even though rock stars and other jet-setters produce large
amounts of greenhouse gasses per capita, their exploits amount to a
drop in the overall bucket."
Time was when the left embraced the notion that those that were not
part of the solution were part of the problem.
I'm glad to see we've moved beyond that phase!
|2.9.07 @ 2:29PM|#
"their exploits amount to a drop in the overall bucket."
Yes, but if it saves even one drop it will be wirth it.
Graphite|2.9.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Even though CEOs and other high-paid managers receive exorbitant salaries, their share of corporate income amounts to a drop in the overall bucket.
|2.9.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Can't run the video as I'm at work.
Is that the Russian Navy Chorus? The uniforms look right.
STEPHEN THE GOLDBERGER|2.9.07 @ 2:34PM|#
that song by the ramones is pretty awesome. the video's pretty sweet too.
|2.9.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Schempf,
How about those that are truthful, logical, and reasonable. How
about those that avoid sensationalizing everything, and also name
calling, Schempf.
When I read news and commentary, I look for integrity. Drudge
severely lacks it. Reason uses Druge, I begin to question Reason's
integrity.
|2.9.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Somehow this reminds me of Red Wedge, the leftie Brit-rocker
anti-Thatcher tour from the late '80s. The manager of one of its
primary acts offhandedly described it to me as "rich pop stars for
socialism."
Red Wedge turned Paul Weller off to politics. It served its
purpose.
|2.9.07 @ 2:42PM|#
"How about those that are truthful, logical, and reasonable. How
about those that avoid sensationalizing everything, and also name
calling, Schempf."
And I would assume you be the arbiter of all things truthful,
logical and reasonable?
Tool
|2.9.07 @ 2:43PM|#
So, Matt, what you're saying is that Nick should have
linked directly to the original story on the Financial Times
website, without a hat tip to Drudge, even if that's how he
found the story?
Since I've done just that, I can assume that you find my integrity
unimpeachable.
|2.9.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I can hardly wait to hear about the gigantic carbon footprint these concerts are going to have. The private jets, the people driving to the concert, the power for all the lights, cameras, PA systems, the gigantic cloud of smug emissions. . . .
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 2:51PM|#
It's good to see that libertarians never engage in any sort of hypocrisy...for example, debating policy over the government-created internet.
|2.9.07 @ 2:59PM|#
Dan T:
Libertarians believe in a small government. Not "no government".
Those little creatures are called "anarchists".
If need be, I can explain that to you using sock puppets.
|2.9.07 @ 3:03PM|#
It's good to see that libertarians never engage in any sort
of hypocrisy...for example, debating policy over the
government-created internet.
True, the government may have started it, but it was all those
pr0n-selling computer-geek entrepreneurs who made it what is
today.
(Yes, yes, I know, don't feed the trolls)
|2.9.07 @ 3:04PM|#
RC:
As you suggest, the earth is indeed rapidly warming due to all the
hot gas coming from Algore and his ever-increasing domesday
cult.
I swear, the way so many people are gleefully jumping on this
bandwagon, it's like something out of "Invasion of the
Bodysnatchers". The next thing you know, if you dare utter
something to the contrary, a mass of people would suddenly point at
you and screech hideously.
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Dan T:
Libertarians believe in a small government. Not "no government".
Those little creatures are called "anarchists".
Just like global warming activists want less carbon emissions, not
"no emissions".
|2.9.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Just like global warming activists want less carbon
emissions, not "no emissions".
In general, I've found most persons with libertarian leanings are
content to allow other people to do what they please, as long as
they don't harm anyone else.
In contrast to Global Warming Believers, who want to force everyone
else into suitcase-sized cars while they still drive to Hollywood
parties in Navigators or Hummers.
Global warming activists certainly do want to reduce carbon
emissions -- just everyone else's, not their own.
|2.9.07 @ 3:18PM|#
"Global warming activists certainly do want to reduce carbon
emissions -- just everyone else's, not their own."
Yeah, but it's ok, because, like, they care™
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 3:18PM|#
In contrast to Global Warming Believers, who want to force
everyone else into suitcase-sized cars while they still drive to
Hollywood parties in Navigators or Hummers.
Time to turn off Fox News.
|2.9.07 @ 3:20PM|#
mediageek,
You miss the point. Of course if Nick would have began the story
with just the link, things would be different. What his citing
Drudge told me was that when he goes to start a blog and look for
information, he includes a person that has absoultely no
journalistic credability at all, being kind. That worries me, and I
feel should it sould worry you as well.
Schempf,
Keep up the ad hominem, it works well for you.
|2.9.07 @ 3:24PM|#
What his citing Drudge told me was that when he goes to
start a blog and look for information, he includes a person that
has absoultely no journalistic credability at all, being
kind.
Because we all know that a link from a site that has no
journalistic credibility drains the credibility from the linked-to
story as well.
Or something.
|2.9.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Time to turn off Fox News.
What Fox News? I was watching Entertainment Tonight's
Oscar coverage.
Those scantily-clad Hollywood bimbos in high heels didn't drive to
the party in hybrids or electric cars, and they sure as hell didn't
walk there. Not they way they're dressed.
|2.9.07 @ 3:30PM|#
R C Dean,
I will try this once again. I had no problem with the story, or
linking to it. But, I do question journalistic sources, of which
Drudge is not a good one. Therefore, I question Nick's integrity
for using Drudge, a person, as a source, for anything. He or anyone
that writes for a magazine, SHOULD NOT use Drudge as any kind of
source whatsoever.
|2.9.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Mark Twain once complained that a lie can make it half way
around the world before the truth gets its boots on. That's been
the case of late in the climate change debate, as political and
media activists attempt to stigmatize anyone who doesn't pay homage
to their "scientific consensus."
Last week the London Guardian published a story headlined,
"Scientists Offer Cash to Dispute Climate Study." The story alleges
that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a
conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, collected
contributions from ExxonMobil and then offered climate scholars
$10,000 so they could lobby against global warming
legislation.
Another newspaper, the British Independent, picked up on the story
and claimed: "It has come to light that one of the world's largest
oil companies, ExxonMobil, is attempting to bribe scientists to
pick holes in the IPCC's assessment." (The IPCC is the United
Nations climate-change panel.)
It would be easy to dismiss all this as propaganda from British
tabloids, except that a few days ago the "news" crossed the
Atlantic where more respectable media outlets, including the
Washington Post, are reporting the story in what has become all too
typical pack fashion. A CNNMoney.com report offered that "a think
tank partly funded by ExxonMobil sent letters to scientists
offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global
warming study released Friday which found that global warming was
real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels."
Here are the facts as we've been able to collect them. AEI doesn't
lobby, didn't offer money to scientists to question global warming,
and the money it did pay for climate research didn't come from
Exxon.
What AEI did was send a letter to several leading climate
scientists asking them to participate in a symposium that would
present a "range of policy prescriptions that should be considered
for climate change of uncertain dimension." Some of the scholars
asked to participate, including Steve Schroeder of Texas A& M,
are climatologists who believe that global warming is a major
problem.
AEI President Chris DeMuth says, "What the Guardian essentially
characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI -- and
Brookings, Harvard and the University of Manchester -- to pay
individuals" for commissioned work. He says that Exxon has
contributed less than 1% of AEI's budget over the last
decade.
As for Exxon, Lauren Kerr, director of its Washington office, says
that "none of us here had ever heard of this AEI climate change
project until we read about it in the London newspapers." By the
way, commissioning such research is also standard practice at NASA
and other government agencies and at liberal groups such as the Pew
Charitable Trusts, which have among them spent billions of dollars
attempting to link fossil fuels to global warming.
We don't know where the Brits first got this "news," but the
leading suspects are the reliable sources at Greenpeace. They have
been peddling these allegations for months, and the London
newspaper sleuths seem to have swallowed them like pints on a Fleet
Street lunch hour.
So, apparently, have several members of the U.S. Senate. Yesterday
Senators Bernard Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and John
Kerry sent a letter to Mr. DeMuth complaining that "should these
reports be accurate," then "it would highlight the extent to which
moneyed interests distort honest scientific and public policy
discussions. . . . Does your donors' self-interest trump an honest
discussion over the well-being of the planet?"
Every member of AEI's board of directors was graciously copied on
the missive. We're told the Senators never bothered to contact AEI
about the veracity of the reports, and by repeating the
distortions, these four Democratic senators, wittingly or not, gave
credence to falsehood.
For its part, Exxon appears unwilling to take this smear campaign
lying down. Bribery can be a crime, and falsely accusing someone of
a crime may well be defamation. A company spokesman says Exxon has
written a letter to the Independent demanding a retraction.
One can only conclude from this episode that the environmental left
and their political and media supporters now believe it is
legitimate to quash debate on climate change and its consequences.
This is known as orthodoxy, and, until now, science accepted the
legitimacy of challenging it.
|2.9.07 @ 3:42PM|#
The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman starts off a column about
global warming on a loopy note:
On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I
went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly,
compact fluorescent light bulb.
Wow, Ellen, thanks for sharing! But a few paragraphs later she
tries to make a serious point and ends up making a serious moral
and intellectual error:
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is
impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are
now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and
the other denies the present and future.
No, Ellen. Let's not "just say" it. Before we make a truly
invidious comparison, let's think a bit, shall we?
On our shelf sits a book called "The House That Hitler Built." It
is a 380-page study of Nazi Germany, written by Stephen H. Roberts,
a professor of modern history at the University of Sydney. Roberts
spent 16 months in Germany and neighboring countries between 1935
and 1937. "My main aim," he explains in the preface, "was to sum up
the New Germany without any prejudice (except that my general
approach was that of a democratic individualist)."
The substance of the book is alarming, although the tone is calm
and detached--so much so that it is eerie to read with the
knowledge of what happened in the years after October 1937, when it
was published. One 10-page chapter is devoted to "The Present Place
of the Jews." At the time Roberts wrote, the persecution of Jewish
Germans was well under way:
At present, the German Jew has no civil rights. He is not a
citizen; he cannot vote or attend any political meeting; he has no
liberty of speech and cannot defend himself in print; he cannot
become a civil servant or a judge; he cannot be a writer or a
publisher or a journalist; he cannot speak over the radio; he
cannot become a screen actor or an actor before Aryan audiences; he
cannot teach in any educational institution; he cannot enter the
service of the railway, the Reichsbank, and many other banks; he
cannot exhibit paintings or give concerts; he cannot work in any
public hospital; he cannot enter the Labour Front or any of the
professional organizations, although membership of many callings is
restricted to members of these groups; he cannot even sell books or
antiques. . . . In addition to these, there are many other
restrictions applying in certain localities. The upshot of them all
is that the Jew is deprived of all opportunity for advancement and
is lucky if he contrives to scrape a bare living unmolested by
Black Guards or Gestapo. It is a campaign of annihilation--a pogrom
of the crudest form, supported by every State instrument.
When Roberts published his book, Kristallnacht was more than a year
away; the ghettoes and death camps were further still in the
future. Roberts described what he witnessed as "a campaign of
annihilation," but he did not foretell the multiplication of its
brutality in the ensuing years. Had he somehow managed to do so, he
would be a prophet today, but he might well have looked like a
crank at the time.
Which brings us back to Ellen Goodman. Imagine if someone in 1937
had foreknowledge of the Holocaust and began sounding the alarms,
describing in detail what was going to happen just a few years
later. Most people probably wouldn't believe him. They would be, to
use Goodman's phrase, denying the future. But would they be "on
par" with people who deny the Holocaust after it has
happened?
That seems a stretch. There's an enormous difference between
doubting an outlandish prediction (even one that comes true) and
denying the grotesque facts of history. Because we are ignorant of
the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust deniers are
neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people may
innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for
evil purposes.
This columnist is skeptical of global warming. We don't have enough
scientific knowledge to have anything like an authoritative
opinion--but neither does Ellen Goodman, who bases her entire
argument on an appeal to authority, namely the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. We lack the time, the inclination and
possibly the intellect to delve deeply into the science. No doubt
the same is true of Goodman.
Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists
speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal
than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem
antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of
global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing
political ideologies. (Granted, we too are vulnerable to that last
criticism.)
Above all, we can't stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act
of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement,
to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent
of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?
|2.9.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Because we all know that a link from a site that has no
journalistic credibility drains the credibility from the linked-to
story as well.
It's the dreaded "Drudge cooties"!
|2.9.07 @ 3:46PM|#
MNG,
"So you're not one of these liberals who scold people for driving
SUVs? These Battlecar Galacticas are okay-dokey with you?" Pay not
attention to the whooshing sensation on your scalp. C'mon, dude, I
had one little, very simple point, and you missed it. Next!
"Hey, the editor's here!" How flattering of your to take an
interest. Next!
mediageek, no one is saying rock stars shouldn't reduce their
carbon footprints, too. Next!
Graphite,
The overall amount of money paid is salaries isn't a problem.
Next!
RC Dean, I can hardly wait for you to be completely silent when
they announce they are offsetting their emission with carbon
credits. Next!
So many people eager to refute my point, absolutely no ability to
do so. As usual.
|2.9.07 @ 3:49PM|#
"Our skepticism rests largely on intuition."
Our confidence rests largely on facts.
That's why we're winning, and you're losing.
Graphite|2.9.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Get it guys? It's like joe's a doctor and he's giving us all our examinations. Why that's just so clever and hilarious! HO HO HO HAHAHAHAHA!
|2.9.07 @ 4:10PM|#
That's why we're winning, and you're losing.
Watch that hubris, joe. You know what it did the Republicans.
;-)
If you're "winning", where are your "victories"? Is the Bush
Administration ready to ratify Kyoto? Hell, are the Europeans able
or even willing to meet their Kyoto goals? Have China and India
agreed to curtail their economic development?
From what I've seen, the only "victory" you've achieved is that
Global Warming is the new Cool Thing. And having glitzy Hollywood
celebrities and virtually every major Media outlet on your side
doesn't necessarily translate into legislative victories (just ask
any gun control activist).
Indeed, I'd say we're at the beginning of the end of the Global
Warming Cool Cycle. Now that Global Warming Believers think they
are unchallenged save by a tiny minority of Greedy Oil Barons and
Toothless Talk-Radio Listeners they're ready to take control: The
Cootie-infested Drudge site had an article about Nancy Pelosi
calling for "mandatory emissions caps".
Boy, that'll really resonate with the American people.
Karl Rove must have fixed his Mind Control Ray Machine.
Proof is in the pudding, joe. If the Democrats in Congress can pass
mandatory carbon emission caps AND win control of the White House
and Congress in 2008, I'll agree that you have won. Otherwise, it's
all a bunch of hot air.
|2.9.07 @ 4:12PM|#
'If you're "winning", where are your "victories"?'
Seen any news in the past week? Public awareness is key to the
realm.
|2.9.07 @ 4:20PM|#
"Seen any news in the past week? Public awareness is key to the
realm."
Wanna buy a pet rock?
|2.9.07 @ 4:30PM|#
"mediageek, no one is saying rock stars shouldn't reduce
their carbon footprints, too. Next!"
That was certainly one implication of your original statement, and
given the all-too-obvious history of celebrities spouting off all
sorts of "do as I say, not as I do" idiocy, it's not outside the
realm of possibility.
Also, I just have to point out that taking a sarcastic comment at
face value in order to refute it just makes you look like a
humorless putz.
But, hey, whatever jiggles your nuts.
|2.9.07 @ 4:30PM|#
"Seen any news in the past week? Public awareness is key to
the realm."
So, how's that whole "free tibet" thing going for Richard Gere?
|2.9.07 @ 4:34PM|#
Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par
with Holocaust deniers
The hysteria of the global warming alarmists is actually much
closer to the alarmism of the Germans who claimed that Jews were
going to be the ruination of the country.
|2.9.07 @ 4:36PM|#
It's good to see that libertarians never engage in any sort
of hypocrisy...for example, debating policy over the
government-created internet.
What government-created internet? You mean Arpanet is still
alive?
von Laue|2.9.07 @ 4:44PM|#
joe, what is the point everyone is trying and failing to refute?
Is it this:
"The majority of the gasses are produced through energy consumption
for run-of-the-mill industrial, transportation, construction, and
home-use operations. It is through changes in these areas that
greenhouse emissions will be brought under control."
Who actually disputed this?
|2.9.07 @ 4:50PM|#
Von Laue, all of the mean ol' libertarians and Republicans in joe's head, that's who.
|2.9.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Dude, Lemmy rules. No one else could make a hairy mole the size of a baby fist look so good.
|2.9.07 @ 5:09PM|#
I believe in global warming, mostly so that people wouldn't make the knee-jerk reaction of being a quack, but at the same time I try to point out to people that maybe shouldn't be so drastic in trying to save the earth by any means neccesarry.
|2.9.07 @ 5:18PM|#
But, I do question journalistic sources, of which Drudge is
not a good one.
Sure, Matt, whatever.
Therefore, I question Nick's integrity for using Drudge, a
person, as a source, for anything.
Except, Matt, he didn't use Drudge as a source. He used a story
Drudge linked to as a source. Can you comprehend the difference
between a linker and a linkee?
RC Dean, I can hardly wait for you to be completely silent when
they announce they are offsetting their emission with carbon
credits.
When they can prove to me that their "carbon credits" are real and
not virtual, I will be indeed be silent, joe. But if their carbon
credits are like the ones for sale in the local Whole Foods, which
neither sequester carbon nor prevent its emission, then I will
continue to call bullshit.
And I've got a pretty good idea which kind of carbon credits they
will purchase. The real ones put money in the pockets of industry,
and the fakes ones put money in the pockets of lefty feel-good
foundations. And given a choice, there is no frickin' way the lefty
feel-gooders behind this are going to pay Exxon for real carbon
credits when they can pay off their pals in some foundation
instead.
joe, if they either buy fake credits or none at all, will you admit
this whole foofaraw did more harm to the planet than good?
|2.9.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Joe "The Planner" Boyle has become more and more obnoxious of
late. He used to be one of the more genteel posters - argumentative
but usually polite - a sort of communitarian Thoreau. Now he often
acts like a petulant teenager.
What happened to the old, nice Joe? We want him back.
|2.9.07 @ 5:22PM|#
I think we're missing the real issue:
Is the Gilmour-Waters iteration of Pink Floyd going to be
performing?
More importantly, if I watch the simulcast on MTV and VH-1 am I
going to have to sit through a fucking Dave Matthews set? No cause
is worth that.
I've got to get back to being brainwashed by Drudge.
|2.9.07 @ 5:24PM|#
GO RAMONES!!!
I'll post somr more swell Ramones vids on this thread.
GABA GABA HEY GABA HEY GABA HAY
|2.9.07 @ 5:50PM|#
R C Dean,
How is he not using Drudge as a source when he goes to his site,
and then starts a blog from that visit? What definition of "source"
do you use?
He should not have anything to do with Drudge in assocaition with
his dealings with Reason, if he expects to be repsected by any
reasonable person.
von Laue|2.9.07 @ 6:38PM|#
I don't understand why clicking a link at Drudge is so awful
compared to clicking a link at Fark or something. The moderators at
Fark have no "journalistic credibility", but I'll bet Anna Nicole
really did die even though I found a link there. If you don't want
to believe Drudge's exclusives, well, fine, I'm right there with
you. But stop being such a prat about where someone found a
link.
By the way, it's my understanding that in many newsrooms, there is
a monitor dedicated to refreshing the Drudge Report -- because he
is an incredible link & news aggregator.
|2.9.07 @ 6:57PM|#
von Laue,
You also miss the point. I don't think anyone that wants to spread
information and enage in reasonable discourse or deabte should come
anywhere near Drudge's work. It's trash. Of course that does not
mean that all of the news he links is trash! That's stupid! His
work is trash! If you site him in anyway in your piece, that yo are
giving credit to trash. If a newsroom really needs Drudge to
aggregate news, that they have problems and I don't want to have
anything to do with them.
If you don't think Drudge lacks journalistic credability, than we
should agree to disagree. But it is unreasonable and intellectually
dishonest to right off Nick's using Drudge as a source because,
"all he did was note the link." HE STILL WENT TO HIS SITE AND NAMED
HIM IN THE PIECE!
Guy Montag|2.9.07 @ 7:30PM|#
And convince Lemmy to change Motorhead's name to
Hybridhead
Ahem . .
.
Don't joke about C8H18
von Laue|2.9.07 @ 8:06PM|#
If you don't think Drudge lacks journalistic credability,
than we should agree to disagree
reading is fundamental, matt.
highnumber: ha!
Guy Montag|2.9.07 @ 8:27PM|#
Even though rock stars and other jet-setters produce large
amounts of greenhouse gasses per capita, their exploits amount to a
drop in the overall bucket.
And their drop is a hell of a lot smaller than mine, so piss off.
|2.9.07 @ 10:12PM|#
Matt:
I do question journalistic sources, of which Drudge is not a
good one. Therefore, I question Nick's integrity for using Drudge,
a person, as a source, for anything. He or anyone that writes for a
magazine, SHOULD NOT use Drudge as any kind of source
whatsoever.
Ridiculous! If Nick cited just the Financial Times story rather
that the Drudge link to it, would we have been spared your
tantrum?
Matt, cuz of this piece and the one you wrote at 6:57pm, I question
your capacity for rational thought and your mental maturity. For
Nick's citation of Drudge to reveal a lack of integrity or any such
thing, Drudge would have to have a track record of fabrication on
these type of matters. Does he? I don't think so. But come on
Shocked Capitals Boy. Cite some examples to justify your hyperbole.
Betya can't.
You're just bloviating cuz it's easier for you than thinking.
Sounds like you're a fine candidate for Al Gore's Global warming
disinformation campaign.
|2.9.07 @ 11:44PM|#
Rick Barton,
Examples of Drudge lying, way, way too easy.
Just one example:
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize
Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER:
SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…" It's not true.
Here's the breakdown -
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to
approve physical searches, without a court order"
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is
authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to
acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one
year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by
that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search
will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property
of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone
inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first
time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and
other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive
order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney
General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire
foreign intelligence information without a court order."
What Carter's executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that
Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that
the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any
communication to which a United States person is a party." So
again, no U.S. persons are involved.
Just one example of many. Drudge has zero credability amonst
journalist. ZIPPO!
|2.9.07 @ 11:56PM|#
I could post these all night long.
So far, Drudge seems to be meeting the new special high standard of
accuracy reserved for the Drudge Report. His only alleged
misstatement that was ever tested in a court of law concerned a
statement about Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, for which Drudge
was sued for libel. The case ended with Blumenthal paying Drudge
money.
REALITY: The "alleged misstatement" was a despicable libel against
Blumenthal. In 1997, Drudge wrote: "'There are court records of
Blumenthal's violence against his wife,' one influential
republican, who demanded anonymity, tells the DRUDGE REPORT."
Drudge retracted the story, but did not apologize to the Blumenthal
family. Blumenthal filed suit against Drudge. While Blumenthal had
to pay for attorneys out of his own pocket, Drudge relied on
funding from right-wing groups (one of the main sources of funding
was David Horowitz who recently libeled David Brock when he
ironically accused Brock of libeling him). Blumenthal had to drop
the lawsuit and pay court costs, not because of the merits of his
case, but rather because of the right's deep pockets.
While that particular libel was an attempt to discredit the Clinton
White House, a more recent Drudge smear was done in order to take
the heat off the Bush White House for the Enron scandal-an odd
behavior by someone who portrays himself as a muckraker. Drudge
spread the falsehood that then-CEO of Enron Ken Lay had slept over
at the Clinton White House (it was actually the White House of
George H. W. Bush). This falsehood spread to much of the mainstream
media. Gene Lyons broke the story that Drudge was full of it.
Nevertheless, Drudge refused to retract the story or apologize. So
I decided to call Drudge's radio show and find out why he didn't
retract the story and apologize. Here is the transcript of our
conversation:
DRUDGE: Let's go back to the board. Line one; you're on the air
with Drudge.
SCOOBIE: Hey Drudge, this is Scoobie here, man. I just wanted to
compliment you on your Enron
coverage.
DRUDGE: Oh, oh, thank you. Yes, it's very stimulating, isn't
it?
SCOOBIE: Yes, especially-
DRUDGE: Why don't you-well, you can take over the show and you can
do thirty minutes of Enron
coverage and we'll see if you have one damn listener at the end of
that thirty minutes.
SCOOBIE: Yes, yes, it's true-
DRUDGE: Why don't you try? The floor is yours.
SCOOBIE: Well, I'll tell you. I especially-
DRUDGE: Go ahead. The floor is yours. You've now got thirteen
Western states. Proceed, sir.
SCOOBIE: Okay, I think it's especially newsworthy-your scoop about
Ken Lay staying in the
Clinton White House, especially when you didn't bother to retract
it and you let others to think
that also.
[Silence]
SCOOBIE: Hello
[Silence]
SCOOBIE: (Louder) Helllloooo
[Silence]
SCOOBIE: Where's Drudge? Hello. [laughing] There's no Drudge.
[These last words were muted from the radio show--leading to about
four seconds of dead air]
[Drudge then disconnected Scoobie and did an incoherent rant
(acting as if Scoobie were still on the line). Scoobie listens to
the rant off the air while drinking a Corona]
So much for Drudge meeting the alleged "new special high standard
of accuracy reserved for the Drudge Report."
|2.10.07 @ 12:39AM|#
Matt,
Thanks for those citations at 11:44. I asked for examples at on par
with the type of subject that Nick cited, but your citations are
interesting anyway. Neither headline contradicts the facts but if
Drudge used them to claim that Bush's dangerous excesses had
precedent in Cater and Clinton, then according to the evidence that
you provided, that claim is indeed false. When did these Drudge
headlines appear?
Your condemnation of Nick cuz; " HE STILL WENT TO HIS SITE AND
NAMED HIM IN THE PIECE!" is still ridiculous, but I'm sorry that I
came down on you so hard about it since now you're arguing with
facts.
|2.10.07 @ 1:27AM|#
!MORE RAMONES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rou1vHVKnfc&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVeffJ4-f9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNKC497sa0Q
|2.10.07 @ 1:29AM|#
I don't understand this 'Drudge is not a good journalist' since
Drudge does very little original journalism.
After a casaul glance at his website, I would say 99% of his 'work'
is links to articles on other websites. And yes, most of those
articles support his (I am guessing here) right of center point of
view.
He very rarely writes an original story.
Godfrey|2.10.07 @ 5:30AM|#
I've clicked on Drudge's links before and found his "headlines"
to be misleading. He's also quick to post things without
fact-checking. I don't consider him a credible journalist and I
don't know anyone who does.
That said, Matt, your point is exceedingly silly. The fact that
Drudge is a numbskull doesn't change the fact that in this instance
he is merely a referrer and not a "source".
It's called a "hat tip". Stop with the hand-wringing already.
|2.10.07 @ 9:56AM|#
If Drudge links to an article it is automatically false?
Guy Montag,
Serious, really?!? I mean, are you serious!
Oh why not.
Here is a case in which Drudge actually changed the headline on a
link to politicize it.
Funny
Matt Drudge wants you to know full well that this Valerie Plame
stuff is all speculation. Reuters' headline reads:
White House Rejects Independent Counsel for Leak
But check out Drudge's version of the headline, which links to the
same story:
White House Rejects Independent Counsel for 'Leak'
Some more good Drudge headlines.
Matt Drudge's Efforts To Cast Doubt on Global Warming Reaches New
Level of Desperation
Global warming is real. Matt Drudge, "the Walter Cronkite of his
era," is working overtime to convince people it isn't happening.
Here's what he put up on the Drudge Report today:
"September 2006 U.S. temperatures 0.7 degrees BELOW 20 centuey
average...."
First, this is totally irrelevant. Global warming does not mean
there is never going to be a cold day or a cold month somewhere on
the globe. Globally, September 2006 was the 4th warmest on
record.
Second, Drudge leaves out this crucial fact from the NOAA report he
links to:
The January-September 2006 combined temperature is warmest on
record. The previous record warm January-September happened in
2000.
In other words, according to the NOAA report Drudge cites, there
has never been a warmer year in the United States so far than 2006.
Amazingly, Drudge is seizing on this report to suggest that global
warming isn't real.
Look, you all can defend Nick, you probably should if you are a
regular here. But to you all, and NIck, when I see the name Drudge,
I run the other way. He is a want-a-be journalist and politcal hack
for the right. He is no libertarian, and I don't think it is
reasonable for a Reason writer to associate with Drudge in anyway,
unless to call him out on paper for what he is. I am so tired of
the poltical hackery from the right. Please, can't you just debate
this stuff honestly.
Lastly, there has been a lot of talk about links. Notice above, he
changes the titles on the links to polticize them. Class act, don't
you think? I'm sure the writers of those stories love him for
that.
Enjoy you morning coffee.
Guy Montag|2.10.07 @ 10:08AM|#
Serious, really?!? I mean, are you serious!
Of course I am not serious. I was making fun of your silly
tantrum.
|2.10.07 @ 12:26PM|#
RC Dean,
"joe, if they either buy fake credits or none at all, will you
admit this whole foofaraw did more harm to the planet than
good?"
Whether the event does the planet good will depend on its capacity
to bring about political changes. This is primarily an event
intended to promote activism, not play music with a small carbon
footprint.
|2.10.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Matt:
But to you all, and NIck, when I see the name Drudge, I run the
other way.
That kind of categorical rule is a crippling, anti-intellectual,
shortcoming.
Global warming is real.
The more critical question, that it's a result of human activity,
is not substantiated at all. Strong evidence to the contrary
includes a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters in
January that found that "the rate of sea level change was found to
be larger in the early part of last century." In the first half of
the 20th century sea level rose by about 2 millimeters per year,
while averaging about 1.5 millimeters per year in the second
half"
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
VM|2.10.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Thanks for the Ramones, Rick! yeaaa.
COMMANDO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S48n3SXMzik
and see the Ramones and add the DEAD BOYS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs0TDMq-PcA
(Sonic Reducer).
Long Live Stiv!
The Wine Commonsewer|2.10.07 @ 10:06PM|#
Oh, But THIS time they're right.
I want a valid explanation for how the climate experts could have
been so incredibly wrong in their modeling and forecasts back in
the 1970's. I also want an apology for the use of hype and the
scare tactics.
We were threatened, no, we were promised a coming ice age that
would wipe us out. We were promised, like a hail of Biblical fire
and brimstone, massive starvation and famine as the population bomb
exploded. None of this happened. In fact, our lives are better,
there is more abundance, and the planet is cleaner than it's been
in a long, long time.
And now, with the fervor of a Pentecostal preacher at a tent
revival, we are promised climate change so dramatic that it will
alter everything there is about life as we know it. Until I get
some valid explanations for the gross errors in past forecasts, I
can't take seriously the idea that the pretty people in Malibu are
going to have to move up into the hills.
|2.11.07 @ 12:46AM|#
Thanks VM! I saved the Dead Boys to my faves. I hadn't even heard of em before.
VM|2.11.07 @ 9:59AM|#
Great, Rick!
Stiv Baters (!) went on to 1) become lead singer of the Lords of
the New Church and 2) got hit by a car in Paris...
cheers!
|2.11.07 @ 9:47PM|#
But to you all, and NIck, when I see the name Drudge, I run the other way.
Please do! Spare us your further obsessive ramblings on Drudge.
Pendulum|2.11.07 @ 11:36PM|#
Rick,
If you like the Dead Boys, you should check out Rocket From The
Tombs. Several members were later in the Dead Boys, and they had a
different, more experimental attack.
|2.12.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Wine Commonsewer wrote:
"I want a valid explanation for how the climate experts
could have been so incredibly wrong in their modeling and forecasts
back in the 1970's."
Answer:
There were only two peer reviewed papers from the seventies which,
when taken out of context/misquoted, suggested anything of the
nature of a coming Ice Age; which I beleive is what you are
refering to. The whole Ice Age Scare was based on just those two,
and then given the mega media treatment by Newsweek et al.
Source:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245