Posted on 12/17/2010 1:01:02 PM PST by HorowitzianConservative
Every year, Catholics renew their baptismal vows and reject, among other "snares of the Devil," something called "the glamor of evil." The old dead white guys who penned those vows predated People magazine and Day of the Locust by centuries, but intuited a profound truth about human nature:
We get more of whatever we glamorize.
The facts matter less than the fame; merely projecting an individual -- hero or villain -- onto the shallow surface of the big screen conveys implicit societal approval and permission, and always with diminishing returns. So we're faced with the unedifying spectacle of 21st century gay activists, appointing themselves the Rosa Parks of the blood donor clinic, or who look upon Christian bed & breakfasts as Woolworth's lunch counters of their very own.
And so the past is cannibalized to feed a self-aggrandizing present and an unlivable future.
The cult of Erin Brockovich represents one of these ill-advised misadventures in selfishness disguised as selflessness, another quest for secular sainthood. Fortunately, her heroic saga is finally unraveling -- but like so many leftist, do-gooder tales, too late.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
ping for later
Before Julia, there was Jane Fonda shutting down the nuclear power industry.
It’s funny how the left will cry that Sarah Palin’s educational pedigree undermines her credibility, but will lionize the likes of Erin Brockovich who had to be awarded an honorary bachelor’s degree.
The characters these women portray are all flighty, loudmouth, know-it-all imbeciles that the MSM LOVES to lionize!!!
Damn the facts ... full speed ahead!
(Don’t even get me started on Hanoi Jane.)
It's an old and too-often successful scam that many fall for. You would think John Q. Public would have wised up to the scam by now, but no. Even when discredited, scams such as 'global warming' still have credibility for millions of otherwise intelligent people.
Don’t forget Sally Fields as crusading union organizer Norma Rae, taking on those horrid textile manufacturers.
The implication of the author being that if asbestos had been used throughout the towers they would not have collapsed.
But here she is using the same "evidence by implication" of which she (rightly) accuses Erin and others.
There is no real evidence the towers would have remained standing with asbestos fireproofing in place, as there is no real evidence of how well asbestos, as compared to cellulose, would have withstood the extreme conditions.
The experts I have read generally concur that with all-asbestos fireproofing the towers would have stood longer, possibly (though there is no real way to quantify this) long enough to evacuate most of those who were eventually killed.
But they also generally agree the towers were eventually going to collapse regardless.
While I don't have direct knowledge of this (I never personally tested or inspected the WTC) I have no reason to believe that the instructors would lie about this. I also know that immediately after 9/11 that a number of new outlets stated that the asbestos in the building was a serious concern.
And Meryl Streep in Silkwood.
The documented health problems from asbestos are related to chronic exposure and not to acute exposure; that does not mean there are no health problems associated with acute exposure, only that any such problems are not documented.
ahhh, man! You just ruined my dinner!!
The Hildabeaste wishes, I’m sure. LOL!!
Her lesbian lover prolly does too.
I thought it was spelled “Bizarre”?
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.