PBS ombud Michael Getler has thankfully expanded on his “I trust Nova” response to concerns that public TV’s leading science program might be influenced by its climate change-denying funders (FAIR Blog, 9/8/10). In a more extensive response to those who thought they detected the fingerprints of oil tycoon David Koch (and industry giant ExxonMobil) in a Nova broadcast, Getler (9/13/10) suggests that those critics might have reason to be suspicious.
Getler points to the interconnection of Koch’s gifts to Nova and to the Smithsonian museum, which has a David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins that portrays climate change as a driving force behind our species’ evolution. The curator of this exhibit, Rick Potts, appears in Nova‘s “Becoming Human” program (rerun 8/31/10), making a similar case. As Getler notes:
The segment did leave you with both a subtle message and the feeling that climate change may not be so bad, or bad at all. Of course, it may be very bad and there is nothing about that in the episode.
I’m not judging the science here, or even the program itself. But the three-way link between Potts, the Smithsonian and David Koch are not explained in the program or online and, somehow, they should have been, even though this was a re-broadcast. Failure to do so adds to the question of whether any red flags went up inside Nova last year or this year or whether they just didn’t want to call attention to those connections.
Nova remains unapologetic and indeed seems indignant that anyone would question the integrity of their science reporting. In a statement to Getler, the program responds to Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm, who had criticized the “Becoming Human” series:
By taking the final few minutes of Nova‘s show out of context, as if the episode were intended to be a major exploration of humanity’s future rather than its past, Dr. Romm has distorted Nova‘s efforts to engage in much-needed, responsible, popularization of a scientific field that is constantly under siege from doubters of evolution.
The reference to “doubters of evolution” makes one wonder: What would people say if the top few of Nova‘s most generous supporters included the two most prominent funding sources for “intelligent design” advocacy? Surely the mere fact that a science program was bankrolled by proponents of pseudo-science would raise eyebrows. And if there creationist shibboleths found their way into Nova‘s programming, however subtly, there would be howls of protest.
Koch’s denial of climate change is no less a pseudo-science than creationism. The big difference is that evolution, unlike global warming, is not a catastrophe that requires urgent action, so its skeptics are much less dangerous—and have pockets not nearly so deep as those who benefit from not taking action against global warming.
I wouldn’t characterize Koch as a skeptic on climate change. Skepticism implies an honest disagreement on things unsettled. He’s a denier. Koch is an adherent of Libertarianism, which as we know, is a set of Utopian crackpot ideas about economic and social theory. (Scratch the thin tin-foil skin of a Bagger and you’ll find a Libertarian–it’s the insane, stupid, and dangerous animus that drives Rand Paul, Glenn Beck, Chrissie O!, and many others). Koch is a true believer; he really thinks what Wiliam F. Buckley called “anarcho-totalitarianism” (the old Conservative was being too kind, I think) would be good for the Good Old USA. It might be good for him and his insane offspring and siblings, but it would be hell on earth for the vast majority of human beings (it already is for many, as Naomi Klein has documented). The only thing the old maniac cares about is power and money; like many very wealthy people, Koch thinks his money is proof of his genius and benevolence. Instead, it is the enabler of his naive faith in a fraudulent political absurdity, severe corporate authoritarianism and economic savagery dressed up as Freedom and “Liberty.”
Dear Sirs:
The question that requires an answer is: Did David Koch or any representative of his or scientist beholden to him have any imput in the script or planning of this show? The naswer is yes. However, Koch supports PBS and Nova generally. In any large organization with lots of intelligent people they will know what might get them in good and what might cause them career problems without ever being told what to do. All the ways to avoid that kind of influence require making difficult decisions that one way or another would end up losing a lot of funding for PBS. Compared to the the fare on TV generally, this is a minor defect. Perhaps an announcement describing Koch’s financial interests and the nature of Dr Potts position and funding source would be sufficient for the likely viewers to be able to temper their judgements on some of the conclusions if this program is rerun in the future.
TimN, you are good at adding the background in a few sense making sentences. Good for you. I think you are good at the patternspotting. Thanks.
So good to see intelligent criticism. Is there any possibility of the PBS hierarchy reading this?
I thought not.
Well, it needs to be said, climate change was a driving force in human evolution. That’s pretty uncontroversial science. And the fact that scientists have been paying more attention to climate change and its roles in past events, particularly in archaeology where it wasn’t as widely studied a few decades ago, is at least partially due to the kind of increased public interest in climate change that the Kochs of the world would probably prefer not to exist at all. I would be much more interested to know how the Koch’s funding has impacted the actual coverage of modern, anthropogenic climate change by Nova than trying to derive subtle meanings from offhand comments in documentaries about a totally different subject.
Look we all know that progressives are the major individual contributors to PBS and NPR and thus
responsible for a major portion of their funding. Hence you will always find Pete Seeger and other
Progressives trotted out at Fundraising times ( NO aspersions on Pete Seeger- one of mine and true
progressives’ heroes!!) to reel in our contributions.
Then it goes back to Exxon/Oil Koch Jim Lehrer centrist coverage with warmongers vastly outnumbering
peace activists, teabaggers outnumbering the 20,000 at the US Social Forum etc etc.
It is well past time for us to pool our individual contributions together into a citizens progressive lumpsum –
we WANT to finally see Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Bill McKibben, James Kunstler, Peace Action, Friends of the Earth etc on the nightly news, the daily coverage the same as the Corporate hucksters.
How can we organize this?
I have stopped contributing to PBS and NPR because I am sick of their coverage just slight less rightwing
than the rest of the mainstream.
Can we do it through FAIR?
Unless we pool our $$$ then the Billionaires will have a greater influence even though in fact we
contribute 33% of their funding..
I, too, have become disgusted at the increasing corporatization of PBS and NPR. Some of their funding comes from what they call “underwriting” messages. However, the trend has been for those messages to be outright commercials. On “Charlie Rose” the other day I saw a commercial for Mercedes. This was not some brief mention of the product with their logo or whatever. This was a slick commercial that would have looked right at home on commercial TV. I also saw an ad for Boeing which was so militaristic that it made me mad just looking at it. I am disgusted that PBS has a commercial that talks about how swell this corporation is for keeping the “battlespace” safe for our soldiers. This is all a long, long way from the PBS that I grew up with. I am also aware of the hypocrisy of their pledge drives when they feature people like Pete Seeger (one of my heroes as well) and try to present themselves with that homespun left of center image. They talk about how they are such a “quality alternative” to commercial TV and yet, as we have seen, they are becoming more and more like it. The nature of PBS programming seems to be centered around the “Holy Trinity” concept. With commercial TV it is Cops, Lawyers, and Doctors which predominate. These shows exist because they are likely to bring in the necessary demographics to assure excellent return from advertising. On PBS it is Nature shows, Travel shows, and Handicraft shows. One of my local PBS channels here in Indiana has so many cooking shows that I really believe that they should rename themselves from “Create” to something more accurate. How about “Watch Me Cook Something Sophisticated That You Will Probably Never Make For Yourself.”
I saw this creeping commercialization back in the 90s when I lived near San Francisco and watched KQED-TV from that city. I complained to their CEO about it and she responded with the predictable message that “underwriting” (this included a slick upscale car commercial with a silver Volvo or something driving around alone in the Marin Headlands) was necessary to maintain revenues to permit “quality programming”.
Twelve years later we can what this pattern has become. I have also decided to stop sending money to either network again. PBS, in particular, seems to derive huge amounts of money from various foundations and the money given by a right-wing billionaire like David Koch is particularly suspect.
I also want to mention something about the flagship news program on PBS, “The News Hour”. Someone talked about Jim Lehrer as being centrist. I wish. Lehrer has been a consistent enabler of our “wars” in the Middle East. Just recently he “interviewed” three people about the Stanley McChrystal affair which resulted from his foolish comments in the Rolling Stone piece. One person, a retired Army general, told Lehrer that he was sure that McChrystal didn’t make those comments because he knew the man and just didn’t think he could have said what was in the article. Lehrer, in a complete repudiation of being a journalist, let it slide despite the fact that McChrystal’s own staff had already confirmed that the general had said those things. Also, what can you say about a formulaic news hour that presents Mark Shields and David Brooks for their Friday news analysis? Mark Shields is, at best, a moderate voice. Brooks, on the other hand, is an unapologetic right-winger with neocon tendencies. He was and is an ardent supporter of our invasions/military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Was this hack was the best that PBS could come up with? I suspect that since PBS still gets funding from Congress that they want them to see that PBS is corporate friendly and not “socialistic”.
All of this and more seems to indicate that PBS and NPR will become even more so in the future. I don’t watch commercial TV anymore (I can’t stand “reality” shows and I hate the endless commercials) but it looks like I will end up feeling the same way about PBS and NPR. There are still good programs on both networks but I fear that they are on a slide into corporatization that cannot be reversed. This is quite a bit outside of the original charter for the CPB back in 1967. It is a real shame that even our “alternative” TV in this country is selling out to the money people.
What excellent, thoughtful, comments!
We could fix much of this crap by re-funding PBS and returning to the days when there were no commercials and the programs covered the full hour. PBS should be entirely non-commercial.
I don’t mind seeing some right wing nonsense on PBS; after all, a certain portion of the public is rightist. What I do mind is the right of center everyday news programming (The Newshour, Charlie Rose) being presented as a liberal alternative to commercial TV. When there is liberal programming, it is relegated to the backwater of Friday night and is also under constant assault. And I mind that the original purpose of PBS is being subtly undermined by these corporate sponsorships.
As others have noted, the best programming is pulled out during pledge drives. If what you show at pledge time is what the public wants, maybe you ought to show more of the same at other times, PBS.
OTOH, the nature programming has gotten so relentlessly preachy that it isn’t a lot of fun to watch these days. I already care about the environment – a lot. I WANT PBS to focus on such things, commercial TV certainly doesn’t. Just not all the time.
A lot of talk about how much rich right leaning corporate “sponsors” are changing the image that has been so carefully crafted by the much much much larger money of our present authoritarionism government(climate warming).No tracker trails being cut in that direction I notice..And the hard science or (baby step science)_ that is evolution, as opposed to creationism-intelligent design,or seed planting by aliens…. also has been infected by political design and the method of peer group good ol boy methodology ..When science finds midocondrial Eve there is no realization to the similar truths that have intersected.Or the story of the big bang as compared to creation.So many things that cross along the path of time.Most religious folks are intransient and thats a shame. But Many profs in your leading universities are liberal(in all that entails) and are producing a generation of same thinkers who form the peer group reviews and “published” authors so relied on for the truth today.Most of whom are under the government thumb in some fashion or another.I would throw down that they are also suspect in this search for the truth.I think Tim was saying follow the money trail and you will often find the perversion of the truth.I agree.But it does cut both ways.
Why are there never any “print version” links on FAIR articles?
@TimN..in case you missed it….the koch brothers are major funders of the california proposition to stall implementing the state’s climate change bill… and in an odd twist, one of the big oil companies is against the prop while the others have made no comment
Forget about NOVA’s BECOMING HUMAN. Check out the episode called “THE BIG ENERGY GAMBLE” about California’s attempt to steer it’s gigantic ship of state into the wind of renewable fuels. What’s the “gamble” referenced in the title? Leaving the oiling shores of derricks pumping black gold next to it’s highways, or fuel brokers (ENRON anyone?) from bankrupting the state. The entire slant of the show– that renewables are a “gamble” –is suspect considering it’s largest funders, Koch and Exxon — one a climate change denier, the other using confusion to continue in its reign as the most profitable company in human history.
Michael E. You are a complicated read. Evolution is, in your opinion, “baby-step-science”? Humaan evolution is but an organic local sufield of the larger general supra science better understood as Natural History, which comprises no less a part of the general field of Science than “Science” itself. The understanding of Natural History, for the serious student, leads to the conclusion that there is no necessiety for the prior concept of Supernatural History. It is not an “Authoritarian Government” that leads to the “crafting” of Global Climate Change theory. It is rather the accumulation of overwhelming data clollected over decades that has resulted on the inescapable conclusion that Anthropogenic global climate change is occurring and that the present and future results will not be beneficial to a large portion of the animal and plant species on Earth. Please consider the possiblity that the reason that the vast majority of “Profs in (your) leading Universities” are producing a genreation of “same thinkers” is that the science of Natrual History, when understood, leads to a common set of conclusions. This is the core of the difference between Scientific and non-scientific reason. The “opinions” resulting from Scientific Inquiry are far more limited than those derived as a result of “guessing”. The notion that “Science” is fundamentally no more valid than any other basis of inquiry is a fabrication of the mind of the supernatural “believer”. The absolute basis of the Scientific method is to eliminate the biases inherent in prior investigational methodologies. As for following the money goes, there is far, far more money in supporting the status Quo than there ever has been in finding the truth. Understanding the universe and our place is an humbling indeavour and inevitably leads to a more reflective and less harsh and judgmental view. If this is what leads you to believe that Profs (what I would call ‘learned’) are liberal, I’d have to agree.
During every fundraising drive held by my local NPR and PBS station I call and complain about the takeover of the stations by corporate money and refuse to donate asking politely that they dunn their paymasters for more payolla
Natural Dave well said.
Do not take offense at the term baby step.I only was indicating that in my humble opinion it is a good first step theory.Human evolution that is.The science is fascinating but probably open to few” conclusions” as it now stands.Or better put few conclusions hold up under proof data.I was at a free seminar on evolution two nights back interestingly enough.The Doctor said something grand pop used to say about hunting. Basically there is more air around the animal(theory) than not.Nature of the game I suppose.The hardship that the great passage of time imposes.We know Dinosaurs existed.It is provable.But are they now birds?Maybe yes maybe absolutely no.But a good theory no?I don’t knock the scientific method per say though I disagree that it is not compromised .It is a little like Democracy as quoted by churchill.”It stinks but it is the best we got”(ok I changed his quote)And I recognize the governments perversion of science for their immediate political goals.
Of course faith is a different path.By its very nature not reflective to belief and yes intransient.Will science and faith intersect at some point.Science I think is not able by its nature to recognize that. Investigational methodologies may be incapable of approaching the subject,But this is philosophical.So Call me superstitious- but I will practice both my faith…. and my science just in case :) As an aside…. I have noticed there are those who “believe ” that people of faith must be in some way “touched’ and so should be pushed away from leadership roles.Hopefully this is not the scientific community.If it is- the lack of core understanding of this country is worrying.
“Accumulation of overwhelming data collected over decades that has resulted in the inescapable conclusion that Anthropogenic global climate change is occurring and that the present and future results will not be beneficial to a large portion of plant and animal species”Well I will agree with one line of that, in saying change is occurring. Past that it is all speculation.I challenge your data. Your conclusions. And Your belief that you understand the future ramifications. And most of all ….human impact on same. And in that challenge lies the gauntlet you must run. This government proposes to impact our economy (and their hope is the worlds economy)to remake the world .To accept not a bigger and better America but a smaller and less- for the sake of this theory. They accept no data that the sky is not falling, because politics have infected the process..Or at least the results of the process. And yet at the same time the sky is falling economically.Strange people who yell” fire will come someday”putting everyone in a panic- as they burn the house down now.So my confluence of thought was ass backwards in saying they crafted the results of global warming.No they used SOME results to craft a takeover of the science.That in turn leads scientists to cook the books as happened here.And then you get a nincompoop like Gore saying the science is closed.Round it goes and where it stops….I knows.With an economy in a more ruinous state than it now is.
If your last line is a personal observation that professors tend by their nature to be less harsh and judgmental,I would say it has not been my observation at all.If you infer that by being learned(educated) you would more likely be a liberal I would say that is erroneous.I think the halls of academia are a cloistered existence. Dependent. And far more prone to economic realities than the pristine science you envision .All this Dave is the process.It exists and will carry on.My beef is strictly where government becomes involved. Where Obama taps the climatologists on the head and declares it good science then with out missing a beat declares he will endeavour to control 1 sixth lets say of our economy for that science.Hit the road I say.
Michael:
Tens of millions of Scientific minded investigators throughout our world have spent tens of thousands of hours each for many generations studying the many different disciplines that comprise the whole field that we today name Natural History. That is billions, if not trillions of man-hours of investigational study into a field in which each discipline dovetails with the others like a beautifully handcrafted bookshelf. Theorizing, investigating, testing, postulating, presenting, accepting or discarding, criticizing each other, always searching for more data, more accurate results, better testing methods, all in an effort to arrive at a more accurate image of the universe and what lies within it (if it actually has dimentionality). All of this effort has less validity than that story you were told as a lad by your folks and their mentors. The real failure of the modern field of Science and the field of Natural History is that thus far, at least, there have been only modest inroads toward generating broader acceptance of this revolution in thought beyond those who study and understand it. This is in no way to be seen as a failure of Science as a discipline, but rather as a failure to overcome the obsticles to it’s understanding and acceptance (popular validity).
As a Philosophy of understanding the Universe and mankinds place in it, Science is the Johnny-come-lately to the party. In retrospect, that this way of understanding existence should come last, is obvious. Being a product of Natural History, mankind had no prior knowledge of the universe and his place in it, It was left to our rational (or irrational) minds to explain the unknown and speculate on the why of all things. For this man created God, not the other way around. Different Cultures created God in different ways in different places at different times, just as they did language. Mankind baised virtually all cultures on their created creator. At first, most cultures developed multiple gods to explain those parts of the environment they didn’t understand, but as the knowledge base expanded (Science began) these were whittled down to one. Now that Scientific Philosophy has reached a point where it completly undermines the validity of that remaining Deity, Science itself must be discredited in order to keep the need for God alive. I await the day that the Planets and the Sun once again revolve around the Earth (Flat?) which lies at the center of the Universe, just beneath the Heavens.
Like the simple little creation myth you were handed, you also want, in this global age of technological challenge, massive interdependent infrastructure needs and worldwide mutual mistrust, competition and greed, a small (except that it must be the world’s strongest) Government that will vanquish those you consider to be our foes (emphassis on you), lead us all in accordance to your theological beliefs, but otherwise leave us alone to prey upon one another like a pack of wolves on a flock of sheep. Too bad those Dinosaurs died off a generation or two ago. Your ancestors probably saddled them up and rode them to market back in the day. You’re going to destroy your Earth to save your God. Unfortunately it’s the one I use as well (Earth, not God).
BTW. I used to watch my local PBS station a lot, and contribute to it, back in the day. It’s been almost a generation since I considered it anything more than just another TV channel but with better (Brittish) sit-coms. They can put all of the Pete Seager on that they want in order to get the old hippie contributions. He’s no threat in the Corporatocracy we now live.
I did know that, Woodward-Bernstein. The Koch boys are, in libertarian fashion, just looking out for their interests. It’s too bad for the rest of us that their interests are inimical to ours.
P.S.: Say, Natural Dave, you wrote, incredibly, this: “Michael E. You are a complicated read.” You’re new around here, ain’tcha?
Yea, Tim, but I’m a pretty quick study! Check this out. I just posted this a minute ago. https://fair.org/blog/2010/09/13/facts-irrelevant-in-nyt-tax-coverage/
I trust you caught that the “complicated read” was a tad tongue-in-cheek, Tim
Natural dave…you are a” quick read”.So your a smug self satisfied little small minded atheist hiding behind a rudimentary knowledge of science and bourgeois cliche’s.And like lib reflexology you attack and belittle anyone with a different view.The boring trite liberal motif.If you have achieved a doctorate in the sciences …any science… i would be surprised.Once you reach that point you usually realize the only time you know “everything” is early in your college days.But Im guessing.So I wasn’t holding you to that high a bar but now i shall.And I would remind you that in medicine we call it the “practice” of medicine.Not the absolute knowledge.If only we had your certainty .Your genius in Natural history science..Your perfection.It would no longer be a practice it would be …it would be without fault. A certainty….like the science of global warming.Oh if only we had you.Not just abstract philosophical discussions but a certainty that science has answered all the questions of the universe and now for instance… Obama can tax all accordingly.Using your data of course as the newest Bible without the slightest worry he may be completely full of shit.I smelled it when you opened entire paragraphs with declarations as if just saying it makes it true.I could actually visualize your high horse.You really believe you are smarter than the average joe. What a waste of breath .Another elitist twit .(I loved how you painted me as a religious person) funny.
Hey remember that tyrannosaurus that had the wrong head on it for like 60 years in the natural history museum.Was that dad or granddad who pulled that boneheaded play before perfection was reached with you?
Tim …always a pleasure.Ive missed your spell check girl roll.You were born to play the part.Good lord will you guys squeal come November.Sorry to the people out there who hate the unpleasantness.But hey……THEY STARTED IT! :)
Yes, Naturaldave, you are indeed a quick study. You sure had You Know Who gulled. Yes, I suspected your remarks about the “complicated read” was tongue-in-cheek. He’s gone completely apeshit on you now, our blessed reactionary over-reacting, as usual. If anything, he’s even more incoherent than usual. Well done, Naturaldave, and welcome aboard!
P.S.: To Naturaldave: Have you read the book “Monkey Girl”?
From natural dave….No but I dated her in my tree hugging days(sorry I could not resist).Apeshit Tim???????Im just having fun with you clowns. But Thanx for the blessing.And yes Dave welcome aboard,,,,, the Obama Titanic express.Grab a life vest.You all is gonna need it come November.HEH HEH HEH
I’m going to order Monkey Girl from Amazon today, Tim. It looks like a good read and is conceptually right down the general path I’m on and have been since the mid 70s. Now Mikey wants me to dust off the ol’ Bio. for acceptance into the club for Christ’s sake! Well, Mikey, you’re absolutely correct. I don’t have a PhD in anything. In fact, I was a College drop-out, not once, but twice!. The first time was right out of High School ’cause I didn’t apply myself (went into the Navy for a tour) and again after I got out ’cause I hadn’t learned my lesson yet. Worked in the woods for a logging Co and flipped burgers for a while and finally got married. Then I applied myself. Graduated with a degree in Physical Anthropology (Human Evolutionary Biology, took most of my classes from the Med School) and did another three years full time in Graduate studies toward my PhD (Genetics, Population Genetics, Compartive Anatomy, Statistics of Comparitive Anatomical Variation, Stratigraphy, Paleontology, Vertibrate Natural History etc. (you know, Mikey, the usual non-technical stuff, not really baised on real data and certainly not the kind of Science leading to an understanding of origins that could compare with the Theistic, one book approach. But alas, with only a thesis to go, and no positions for instruction on the horizon (mid 70’s and affirmative actions were quite a challenge for White Males. I think I accepted this better than you probably would have, Mikey, as I understand that eliminating gross inequities in societies may have unintended consequences) I took a summer sabatical as a painter and made a carreer of it (yes, I’m still swinging a brush and pushing a roller up and down walls at the age of 69. It’s my own company now and has been for 36 years so I do it to keep in shape and support my too many properties, not ’cause I have to besides, I like working with my hands, head and heart. Michaelangelo sais that makes me an Artist!). What was I to do, turn my wife and infant children out into the street? Besides, It was beginning to dawn on me that all of the knowledge that I had gained and hoped to impart onto the massed as an educator was more and more likely to fall on deaf ears. After a generation of general public interest and acceptance of fossil finds in the 50’s and 60’s the fundamentalist religeous institutions began to understand that their faith and flock were at risk and began a dis-misinformation campaign that has continued, growing more robust each year to the present. It appear that my skepticism concerning the likely value of the mission I set for myself was well founded. The percentage of Americans believing in Evolution today is lower that it was 50 years ago, while the scientific evidence for it becomes more incontrovertable with each new discovery. Bringing this topic back to NOVA, there are two forces at work here to alter the percieved consequences that real scientific inquiry into Anthropomorphic (human caused) climate change can create. On the one hand, the Koch Brothers have a vested interest in maintaining public acceptance and use of carbon baised energy which keeps them from having to turn their daughters our onto the streets. On the other hand, all religeous institutions, particularly the rapidly growing fundamentalist kind have a vested interest in ridiculing all things scientific (except, of course, communications technology which better enables them to deny all other Science) in order to better controll the knowledge of their flock. These forces, in tandem, are working perfectly to continue to keep the uninformed and ignorant masses supporting the status quo that benefits the uninformers (oops, that was perilously close to a Bushism). This is not to say that there MUST be a nefarious plot on either parties part to intentionally misinform the uninformed masses. both the Koch Brothers and the Creationist Preachers may be so committed to their idology that they simply cannot see validity in any philosophy but their own (sound like anyone we know here? And yes, Mikey, I know you’ll say it’s me). It is curious, in this event that it just happens that their fortunes (great or small) rely heavily on their idology, and must be noted that a fundamenalist oil man is itself a contradiction in terms. Regarding November, I support my candidates with my money and my vote, and leave the rest to the winds of time. If your side gains more strength again as in 1994, perhaps you will all have to eventually stop lusting after yourselves. Ahhh, the good ol’ days.
The “your side” part of the last sentence was directed at Mikey. The Self Lusting part is, in my opinion, going to create an America of lawlessness I fear.
Natural dave loved you bio though really it was not needed.But damn Im glad you wrote it.I did hate it when you said “then” you applied yourself though.All things happen in their own time.You realized many of your ambitions.Damn fine show.Im sure you applied yourself at everything you undertook.As a job,a passion or for old fashion green.FUnny-You are miles and miles above so many who work for Obama who never held a private sector job and are lost…in their ideology though you may not see it…Worked in a logging company well I will be damned. Actually worked for a living .Really worked before and after you took the road to finishing college.Be honest I have far more respect for you for the painting(art and otherwise) and navy service and all the rest of it than for the massed degrees.So I do sincerely apologize for the outburst that had you pegged as something that I was obviously wrong on(something that happens to me often here).Hope you accept that as I do mean it.WE have more in common than you know and would probably be fine as dare I say it friends.Hopefully we will carry on in a more civil manner.Do stay about as your input will be valued.WE must strive to be pragmatic also I think.WAs it Jefferson that said something to the point of…..Argue with all you have for truth- even to the very existence of God”Honorable legacy in our very DNA
Your last line concerning lawlessness?I have pondered that.What is it you fear?
It’s a really good book, ND. You’re gonna love it. It’s actually inspiring, and the fear you express above will melt away like a glacier in the Global Warming heat. I promise. Hmm . . . My sister, who worked for Obama, held a private sector job more than once. (She quit her private sector job to become a lobbyist–in the private sector, but she’ll be exposed to dreadful public-sector types. I hope she’s careful.) Every single person I met whom she knew had a private sector job. You know what, ND? You can’t see it, but all those private-sectorers out there who worked for the Evil One? The single, malevolent eye of He Who Knows All And Yet Nothing will soon seek them all out all over again and have them working for him for the next “cycle.” For free. Forever. That is all.
Worked for Obama…Hmmmm????So far I have avoided meeting him.Came too close once and almost had to be rude but it passed before I was put in that position.Heard he raised a million today for the Dems in Philly.Im proud it was one hundred percent “little guys”and no-one any where to be seen with an incorporated title attached to their existence(at least that is what you believe).THats why I love him ….his lack of hypocrisy :) Became a lobbyist?Hmmmmm?I actually know tons of Lobbyists.Wow so much to say about that but Im being positive today.Hey any book that removes all the negativity and inspires to a better tomorrow is worth it.REad read read.
Went to a tea party rally and a lib rally.One was complete positivity.One was negative vibes through and through.Hatred spewing…..A friend who had his tea party sticker got his window broken at the lib rally.My lib friend(a writer) at the tea party rally….his car and stickers were of course fine.And by the way he agreed with my assessment of the differing vibes.His article will simply state the rally he went to was everyday people who wanted a return to constitutional values,less government involvement etc…..All in all nice people.He will also write he was very very disappointed with his own parties rally .So does that remove him from your xmas card list?
For Libertarians in general & the Kock Bros. in particular they follow more the Social Darwinist pseudo science of dog-eat-dog of their own financial cut throat attitudes dove tail nicely. To them they are predators and if you and I are not then we are justly crushed. They like the so called “Law of the Jungle” of universal predation or die philosophy. Ayn Rand would have approved. That is scary.
I would be highly wary of anything they fund. Just as they would if a Hindu funded a Bible college would to them. If it is antithetical to their professed beliefs It would be for them to have it changed to better conform to them either directly or by dissolution of the clear concrete ideas they wish to stop.
Nightgaunt For Libertarians……..
I am not a libertarian because i think foreign policy as Ron Paul would see it, would hamstring out ability to compete.We need to be able to react at light speed to the many challenges ahead of us.I think he would hamper that.That is a very very long story short.Past that he is simply a constitutionalist.To paint him as a man who espouses the law of the jungle is simply perception drawn form propaganda and old canards.He is usually dead on correct in his interpretation of the laws of this land as laid down by the constitution.Obama has not a clue.It does bring to mind Obamas statement that the constitution is a “mean” document that hampers government power.You seem to believe the libertarians are in the same way….mean.We are a country of rugged individuals.Not a nanny state.It also brings to mind the saying that FREEDOM IS NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.Our fore fathers cut stone and wood,tamed the land and sea’s and fought off all foes foreign and domestic to create the beauty we enjoy.When did we loose the strong men and women who would smash past any impediment?Look at what libertarians espouse.What in their platform rings untrue for the American people?
Once you get passed the myth of “rugged individualism” then we can discuss it. No one lives on their own doing every single thing to live. How are you on support of the poor? Do you accept the idea of a certain wage and place to live so that even the most poor (new & old) have a place to sleep & food to eat? I like the idea of individuals doing what they want with their own bodies and those of consenting adults. Corps aren’t people and have no rights. They need to be regulated and controlled. Do you accept that? Is it dog-eat-dog for you or Mutual Aid in your society you envision?
A certain amount of work is necessary to maintain society. But what do we do with those who don’t fit in? Who are injured and can’t work anymore? Just dump them and hope they die soon? Just curious.
Yeh, those domestic enemies were the Amerinds who didn’t fit it and weren’t allowed too exist their way. Is that how you see those of us who don’t fit in now? Just curious.
Your excellent criticisms of PBS – NOVA, Need To Know, The Newshour, etc, can be heard. Go to PBS’s parent corporations – CPB’s website. Go to “Open to the Public” and look for the tag for input. They HAVE to place your comments on their monthly report.
This “slightly right of center” shift is not only apparant, but infuriating. Kenneth Tomlinson, at Karl Rove’s direction, placed Republican operatives in commanding positions in CPB (Harrison, Halpern & Gaines). Tomlinson was ousted after his smearing attempts at Bill Moyers, but they (two) still remain. Do you think Obama can try to negate their influence and appoint Michael Moore? Ahhh, to dream…