(Weird) Al Gore plays leading man - MEGA PROJECTILE BARF ALERT !!!!

When there is a new outrage, I have to download some of my existing outrages, to make room. -- Al Gore

CANNES, France -- What he wants you to know is that he has not made a political film. Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" tries to move outside politics and focus on the facts of global warming. Gore says those facts are established, the returns are in, there is almost unanimous scientific agreement about them, and we may have about 10 years before the earth reaches a tipping point from which it cannot recover.

He has been traveling the world for six years making speeches in which this message has evolved. But all of those speeches put together have not had the impact of this new documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, which is horrifying, enthralling and has the potential, I believe, to actually change public policy and begin a process which could save the earth.

It is not only an important film, but a good one. Guggenheim has found a way to make facts and statistics into drama and passion. He organizes Gore's arguments into visuals that overwhelm us. Gore begins with the famous photograph "Earthrise," which was the first photo taken of Earth from outer space. Then he shows later satellite photos. It is absolutely clear that the white areas are disappearing, that snow and ice is melting, that the shape of continents is changing. The polar areas and Greenland are shrinking, lakes have disappeared, the snows of Kilimanjaro have vanished, and the mountain reveals its naked summit to the sky for the first time in human history.

You owe it to yourself to see this film. If that sounds overdramatic, I understand. I could not have imagined writing that before seeing the film myself. "An Inconvenient Truth" is not Al Gore's "opinion," or anyone's "political position," but a report on a process that the world's environmental scientists -- almost literally every single one of them -- are in agreement about.

Al Gore sits in a hotel room at the Cannes Film Festival and talks about these things. His film received a standing ovation here, but lots of films do. What's extraordinary is what an impact it has had. People are talking about it in that particular tone of voice that indicates they were moved beyond all their expectations. It opened Friday in New York and Los Angeles, and this Friday in Chicago and many other major cities. It will then roll out across the country, building (Gore hopes) on word of mouth, on people telling each other they must see it.

Gore makes no mention in the film of President George W. Bush or any of his policies. He deliberately avoids naming any names or pointing any fingers. "This is not a political movie," he said firmly. "Paramount did a lot of focus groups, and people came out said it was not like 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' It played fair and supported what it said. It appealed equally to Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. You have to remember that the environment used to be a bipartisan issue in the United States. Religious leaders saw it as a matter of respecting God's creation."

In the film, Gore is shown as a man with a mission. Other retired politicians go into business or the media or teaching. Gore has devoted his life to the issue of global warming.

"The other day," he said, "I saw a TV ad, which is being run to try to neutralize this film. It's sponsored by an industry front group underwritten largely by Exxon Mobil. They have a line in the ad: 'CO2. They call it pollution. We call it life.'

"Honest," he said. "This is a real ad. I know it sounds like a spoof from 'Saturday Night Live.' It's funny, and we laugh, but the energy industry has paralyzed America for 20 years with disinformation like that. They're using exactly the same strategy the tobacco industry used. They're saying there is a 'controversy,' and they refer to a 'debate' when in fact the scientific consensus on global warming is definitive.

"We found an internal memo from an energy industry group from 1998, written by their disinformation specialists, saying their objective was: 'Reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.' That's the same language that tobacco used. The easiest defense is to simply deny reality, and claim the truth is not the truth. Otherwise, they have to admit there is a moral imperative for change, and that would offend their big supporters in the oil and energy industries."

Gore says this, and behind him through the hotel window the sun shines down on Cannes and people make deals and go to movies and the world looks much as it always has. Then you go to his movie and discover that they drilled into the polar ice to extract an ice core that's a 650,000-year record of global climatic trends, and the current situation is going off the charts. There is no precedent. You learn that hurricanes in the Gulf and typhoons in the Pacific have suddenly escalated in frequency and strength. That rainfall patterns are being disrupted. That Arctic melting is having an effect on the Gulf Stream. That the 10 hottest years in history have been in the last 14 years. That the number of days annually the Arctic tundra has been frozen enough to support trucks has gone down from 225 to 75.

"There is as strong a consensus on this issue as science has ever had," Gore said. "A survey of more than 928 scientific papers in respected journals shows 100 percent agreement. But a database search of newspapers and magazines shows 57 percent of the articles question global warming, and 43 percent accept it. That's disinformation at work.

"Even in the short run," he said, "we aren't heeding the warnings. Two or three days before Hurricane Katrina, the National Weather Service predicted a hurricane so severe it would create 'medieval conditions' in New Orleans. It issued clear warnings that the levees might be breached and the city flooded. Yet look what happened, and how slow the response was. Hurricane season starts again in a week."

I asked him: "How do you feel about Bush's position on global warming?" -- since his film never mentions the president's name and refers to him only indirectly, when Gore introduces himself: "I used to be the next president of the United States."

Gore shrugged. "There was a big new official study last month that said global warming is real and human activity is largely responsible. The White House, quite, 'accepted the study without endorsing its conclusions.' A White House spokesman said, 'This is only the first of 21 studies.' That sounds good until you realize it is also the latest of hundreds of studies.

"The danger," he said, "is that people will go from denial to despair without stopping in between to ask themselves what action they can take."

In the movie, Gore suggests some actions, like switching to higher-mileage and hybrid cars, developing and supporting clean energy sources, and even something as simple as turning off the lights.

"The leading scientists say we have about 10 years. After that, we reach the tipping point, the point of no return. That doesn't mean the world ends, but it means that civilization as we know it gradually becomes impossible, more quickly than we can imagine.

"Is it too late? Look at the hole in the ozone layer. Everybody got together on that after the Montreal Accord, and the hole has grown a lot smaller, and will have disappeared by the year 2050. So that worked. No, it's not too late. But it's too late to be sitting around."

Q: Rothschild: Tell me what was your reaction to Michael Moore's acceptance speech at the Academy Awards.

A: Ebert: I agree with what he said. I don't think Bush was legitimately elected President.

Q: What do you make of the criticism of Hollywood celebrities for speaking out against the war -- the Sean Penns, the Susan Sarandons?

A: Ebert: It's just ignorant; it's just ignorant.

I begin to feel like I was in the last generation of Americans who took a civics class. I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the First Amendment, don't understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don't understand that it's the responsibility of the citizen to speak out. If Hollywood stars speak out, so do all sorts of other people. Now Hollywood stars can get a better hearing. Oddly enough, the people who mostly seem to hear them are the right wing, so that Fox News can put on its ticker tape in Times Square a vile attack on Michael Moore, and Susan Sarandon is a punchline.

Q: When the Susan Sarandons and Sean Penns speak out, they do so at some risk to their career options, don't they?

A: Ebert: There's an interesting pattern going on. When I write a political column for the Chicago Sun-Times, when liberals disagree with me, they send in long, logical e-mails explaining all my errors. I hardly ever get well-reasoned articles from the right. People just tell me to shut up. That's the message: "Shut up. Don't write anymore about this. Who do you think you are?"

Q: It's the Dixie Chicks impulse. One of the members of the group said she was ashamed to be from Texas where the President is from. And so, in what I consider a brownshirt tactic, some rightwing DJs organized gatherings where people literally stomped on Dixie Chick albums.

A: Ebert: It wasn't just some rightwing DJs. The New York Times reported that it was also organized by a radio conglomerate that had received a lot of favors from the Bush Administration in deregulation. So that was not a spontaneous outpouring. It's a shame. It's a shame. The right really wants to punish you for having an opinion.

http://tinyurl.com/s3yh5

"Through his boorish, knee-jerk leftism, Ebert has become merely another Hollywood elitist thumbing his nose at America. Two thumbs down."

Source: Chris Reed Front Page Magazine http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9187

Roger Ebert: The Shrill Shill By Chris Reed FrontPageMagazine.com | August 1, 2003

The August issue of The Progressive is out, and, surprise, surprise: It features a TV star unloading on George W. Bush, craven Republicans and the evils of American capitalism in a way that makes Howard Dean seem downright restrained.

Ranting about how Bush stole the presidential election, is simultaneously a religious zealot and disrespectful to the Pope, and is both devious and a moron, the TV star can’t understand why the rest of America doesn’t agree with him.

“I think a lot of working-class people don’t understand their money is being stolen…[W]e’ve had a concerted policy of taking money away from the poor and giving it to the rich wholesale, and at the same time, we have the runaway corporations and the greed. I feel ordinary people really should be angry.”

Martin Sheen? Michael Moriarty? Janeane Garofalo?

Nope. It’s Roger Ebert, perhaps the best-known critic in the world, thanks to his durable weekly TV show and its thumbs-up, thumbs-down gimmick.

But Ebert has other personas besides the one he’s cultivated on television for nearly 30 years. There’s the Roger Ebert whose lucid, middlebrow reviews for the Chicago Sun-Times have made him arguably America’s most influential print film journalist. There’s the Ebert who once moonlighted as a writer for exploitation-film specialist Russ Meyers, getting the script credit on “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.”

And now, at age 60, there’s the James Carville-style demonizer who thinks the right is always wrong, and inevitably has appalling motives to boot.

This Ebert came to the fore in the fall of 2000, with his over-the-top raves for “The Contender,” writer-director Rod Lurie’s story about a female senator (played by Joan Allen) nominated to replace a dead vice president who nobly refuses to address Republican-spread rumors that she was involved in college orgies. Lurie’s labored attempt to equate the treatment of his heroine under fire with the treatement received by Bill Clinton after he was caught using the Oval Office to receive oral sex from a doltish intern was widely panned – except by Ebert. In his print review, after hamhanded shots at Republicans and Kenneth Star, Ebert called “The Contender” a four-star classic.

It’s been all downhill since. The lowlights:

-- His vicious depiction (in a July 2001, Sun-Times general-news column) of presidential daughter Barbara Bush as an ignorant “yob” on the loose in London. Given her idiot father, Ebert reasoned, what could one expect?

-- His relentless championing of “Bowling for Columbine,” Michael Moore’s latest agitprop masquerading as a documentary.

-- His tirade about George W. Bush’s alleged vicious insensitivity toward those on Texas’ Death Row in his print review this spring of “The Life of David Gale,” a melodrama about an anti-death-penalty crusader.

-- His likening of the Bill the Butcher character in “Gangs of New York” – a cleaver-waving, mass-murdering thug – to Katherine Harris. Ebert’s point, made on “Ebert & Roeper”: Both Bill the Butcher and Harris used whatever means possible to take and keep power. Even the Democratic National Committee comes up with more sophisticated insults disguised as insights.

It’s worth comparing Ebert’s reflexive right-bashing with the approach of Pauline Kael, the legendary New Yorker writer who was considered the nation’s most influential film critic in her heyday. The contrast does not flatter her successor.

Kael was a Manhattan liberal. She liked the protest movies of left-wing European filmmakers like Costa-Gavras and famously decried “Dirty Harry” as a “fascist” entertainment.

But Kael also had little patience for stridency from the left. She denounced Oliver Stone’s films as bombastic and didactic. And Kael, remember, was the journalist who more than any other helped expose Michael Moore for the propagandist he remains. Her New Yorker piece on the “gonzo demagoguery” of Moore’s maiden “documentary” – 1989’s “Roger & Me” – helped killed its chances at an Oscar.

Ebert, or at least his latest incarnation, is incapable of writing such a piece – or any piece whose politics wouldn’t be at home in Mother Jones. When it comes to American politics, you see, it’s the yobs vs. the smart guys. And if the smart guys smear or slander the yobs, well, so what? The yobs have it coming. Through his boorish, knee-jerk leftism, Ebert has become merely another Hollywood elitist thumbing his nose at America. Two thumbs down.

1 posted on 05/18/2004 6:45:22 AM PDT by KeyLargo

http://tinyurl.com/jcr5n

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.