Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prof: Force Students to See Gore Movie, Christians Cause 'Indescribable Tortures and Agony'
Seattle Times/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on 07/12/2006 4:11:44 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest

by Mark Finkelstein

July 12, 2006

Is university 'journalism' education anything more than training camp for liberal cadres preparing to join MSM ranks? Take, for example, this morning's op-ed in the Seattle Times by Floyd J. McKay, a journalism professor emeritus at Western Washington University.

He spouts straight-from-the-Gore's-mouth alarmism about global warming, going so far as to propose that high school students be forced to view Al's movie. He also takes predictable swipes at the Bush administration, conservative talk show hosts, throwing in a particularly nasty swipe at Christian conservatives in the process. Excerpts below.

* "Migrations [from farm to city] in India and elsewhere in Africa and Asia cannot be sustained at today's Western standard of living. Even at one car per family, without air conditioning and supermalls, the world's environment cannot survive the onslaught."

* "I'd suggest we start by making Al Gore's slide-show movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," required viewing in every high school in the country.""\

* "All American adults should see the movie, and many will. But we are so politically polarized that we can expect 40 percent of the nation to follow the lead of President George W. Bush and the talk-show hacks and either make fun of Gore or refuse to see his work."

* "Global warming is only the most important of a number of scientific areas in which the White House has been hostile to scientific research, and has attempted to intimidate government scientists."

* "There will be sacrifices to deal with global warming, and we will need to change some habits of long-standing. But, as Gore points out, there is also the potential for entire new industries with good jobs to emerge from this change." [This was the Clinton-Gore line from 1994 - great new jobs in complying with government regulation.]

* "We must decide which scenario will determine the end of life on this planet. One, increasingly in favor among the most fundamentalist of Christians and Muslims, is apocalyptic, an end-times for the devout that condemns millions of others to indescribable tortures and agony."

* "Policies of our present administration tilt toward the apocalyptic; we will lose eight years on global warming before the Texas oil and military complex leaves office."

McKay: typical of the academics who prepare our young minds to become 'objective journalists.'


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: academia; bds; christians; clintonistas; enemywithin; environment; floydmckay; gore; goremovie; highereducation; journalism; leftismoncampus; seattletimes; socialists; wackos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: xp38

Oh, sure. As a kid we went to races at "The Brickyard" in Milwaukee, WI.

I was a teen when my folks were socked with 18-20% interest rates on their mortgage, waiting in line for gasoline, all that Carter-Era Crisis stuff...which didn't even have the added bonus of Global Warming Doom and Gloom tacked on, LOL!

Let's see...it's 29 years later and we're still guzzling oil. I'm not worried about it. Yesterday on a local radio talk show there was an Ex-Carter Cabinet Energy Guy on as a guest and all he could suggest on energy savings and saving the planet was for people to switch to CP lightbulbs and to replace their windows. Duh. Anyone (like me) that watches their household "bottom line" has already done that.


21 posted on 07/12/2006 5:29:46 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes

Actually, no. The majority of Christians never believed in a pre-tribulation rapture, nor, indeed do the majority of Christians today.

The 'pre-tribulation rapture' is an error of Scriptural interpretation which first arose among some small protestant sects in the 19th century. No Christian before that believed it, and no Orthodox, Latin, Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, or Calvinist (whether Presbyterian or Congregationalist) Christian who actually believes the teachings of his or her confession believes it today.

Go back and read the passage in which St. Paul describes the believers who are alive meeting the Lord in the air. It is plainly a description of an event coincident with the general resurrection, and thus after all of this world's history, including whatever horrors actualize St. John's prophecies in his Apocalypse. I would go so far as to suggest the 'pre-tribulation rapture' is a heresy promulgated by the Evil One to lead the faithful astray: those who hold it will reason 'we haven't been raptured, so this can't be the Anti-Christ,' and will be easy prey.


22 posted on 07/12/2006 5:31:40 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

If his movie is anything like his book, Mind Out of Balance; making the Country watch it will put Sominex out of business.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters


23 posted on 07/12/2006 5:33:03 AM PDT by bray (Jeb '08, just to watch their Heads Explode!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes
I always liked Larry Wall's explanation of the term:

"People get scared when they hear the word Apocalypse, but here I mean it in the good sense: a Revealing. An Apocalypse is supposed to reveal good news to good people. (And if it also happens to reveal bad news to bad people, so be it. Just don't be bad.)"

24 posted on 07/12/2006 5:36:55 AM PDT by mpoulin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

There will be sacrifices to deal with global warming...

Let's start by sacrificing journalist professors (emeritus professors have priority), then continue on with academia, MSM, liberal politicians and Hollywood.

I'm certain this start with reduce the amount of "hot air" causing global warming


25 posted on 07/12/2006 5:45:02 AM PDT by RexFamilia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

"I'd suggest we start by making Al Gore's slide-show movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," required viewing in every high school in the country."

"Look into my eyes! You're getting warmer, kiddies. Warmer, warmer...."


26 posted on 07/12/2006 5:52:29 AM PDT by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I think we all need to give the President of Western Washington University an earful. If I had a kid going to school there, I'd get a Ward Churchill ball rolling on this jerk.


27 posted on 07/12/2006 6:14:30 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

“The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science,” says Professor Bob Cook, from the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia.

“Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”


28 posted on 07/12/2006 6:19:27 AM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

Not quite. It's "You will make sacrifices...". Beautiful People are exempt.


29 posted on 07/12/2006 6:37:24 AM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I'm taking a class now where the prof. is giving extra credit for seeing "Inconvenient Truth".

If I do it I'll have to go while I'm severely inebriated.


30 posted on 07/12/2006 6:57:08 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (My head hurts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calvin Locke

You're right of course and we know who also made this statement, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."


31 posted on 07/12/2006 7:01:48 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
I'll have to go while I'm severely inebriated.

No wonder your head hurts ;-)

32 posted on 07/12/2006 7:12:29 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show Since 2002 So You Don't Have To.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Libertina; Paperdoll; Maynerd; Bobsvainbabblings; moneypenny; Kaylee Frye; Clintonfatigued; ...
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Say WA? Evergreen State ping

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

33 posted on 07/12/2006 8:27:24 AM PDT by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Iran Azadi | SONY: 5yst3m 0wn3d, N0t Y0urs | NYT:Jihadi Journal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

The headline does not say the same thing as the Perfesser. He does NOT say "Christians CAUSE indescribable tortures and agony" though he probably believes it.


34 posted on 07/12/2006 8:31:34 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drlevy88

Protectionism would be a tool used by some one who hates America since it lowers our standard of living and makes life more expensive to Americans especially lower income Americans.


35 posted on 07/12/2006 8:32:44 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit; GOP_1900AD; chimera; A. Pole; ALOHA RONNIE
Protectionism would be a tool used by some one who hates America since it lowers our standard of living and makes life more expensive to Americans especially lower income Americans.

And just why are their "lower income Americans" pray tell?

Perhaps you have read Econoists Pat Choates or perhaps Dr. Ravi Batra's book The Myth of Free Trade: The Pooring of America., here are some relevant quotes:

"Unlike most of its trading partners, real wages in the United States have been tumbling since 1973, the first year of the country's switch to laissez-faire." (pg 126-127)

- "Before 1973, the US economy was more or less closed and self-reliant, so that efficiency gains in industry generated only a modest price fall, and real earnings soared for all Americans." (pg. 66-67) -

- "Moreover, it turns out that 1973 was the first year in its entire history when the United States became an open economy with free trade." (pg. 39) -

- "Throughout its history, at least until 1970, America was practically a closed economy." (pg. 37)

One of our President's also had a dynamic theory as to that...and the interconnections:

President William McKinley (1896-1901) stated at the time of his political tenure:

"[They say] if you had not had the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or dear depends upon what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer. Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man.

"[It is said] that protection is immoral.... Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, `Buy where you can buy the cheapest'.... Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim:
`Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."

It sounds like you keep offering only shallow Tom Friedman-ite notions of economics...without knowing any history or actual economics. Here also is a broad dissertation of actual history as reprinted in Wikipedia:

National economic policy

According to historian Michael Lind

"Many things that educated people in the English-speaking world think that they know about economic history are, in fact, false. It is not true that there was a golden age of free trade ended by America's adoption of the much-reviled Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930; a tariff which is unfairly blamed for the rise of fascism and the second world war-phenomena which originated, respectively, in the cultural trauma of the first world war and the geopolitical ambitions of Germany, Japan and Italy, rather than the depression. The school of thought in economic policy with the greatest global influence between the 1800s and the mid-20th century was not the laissez-faire "English School" of Adam Smith and David Ricardo but the rival school of economic nationalism, which is more accurately labelled as "strategic economics" because its prescriptions have been followed successfully by empires, trading blocs and city-states as well as nation states.

In the US in the 1790s, the brilliant first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, laid out a programme for the industrialisation of the country by means of infant-industry protection and other policies. Hamilton's programme was developed in the next generation by Henry Clay, under the name of "the American System," and implemented under Clay's disciple and admirer Abraham Lincoln and his successors during the period between the 1860s and the 1940s, when the US became the planet's leading manufacturing economy behind a high wall of tariffs.

The lessons of the "American school" of "national economy," transmitted to Germany by Friedrich List, formed the basis of state-sponsored industrialisation in Wilhelmine Germany. Moreover, during a visit to Germany in the 1870s, Toshimichi Okubo, one of the leaders of the Meiji Restoration, became acquainted with the Hamilton-List tradition. Returning to Japan, Okubo founded the ministry of home affairs, which promoted Japanese industry, and in 1874 issued an equivalent of Hamilton's 1791 Report on Manufactures, in the form of his influential Proposal for Industrial Promotion.

By the early 20th century, then, the US, Germany and Japan had successfully used strategic economics to catch up with Britain and (in the case of the first two nations) to surpass it. Even Britain's dominions of Australia and Canada, emulating American and German practice rather than British theory, insisted on the right to use tariffs to keep out goods from Britain and establish their own industrial base. Not that Britain had any right to complain. From the Tudors until the early 19th century, Britain used various protectionist devices to promote its own industries. The 18th-century prime minister Robert Walpole, remembered chiefly today as a corrupt politician pilloried by Alexander Pope, turns out, according to Chang, to have been an industrial-policy mastermind who inspired Alexander Hamilton.

Only when Britain's industrial supremacy was secure did the British begin to promote free trade, in the hope of wiping out competitive industries in the US, continental Europe and elsewhere. Following the Napoleonic wars, which stimulated the growth of American manufacturing by suspending transatlantic trade, Lord Henry Brougham in 1816 told parliament: "It is well worthwhile to incur a loss upon the first exportation, in order by the glut, to stifle in the cradle, those rising manufactures, in the US, which the war had forced into existence, contrary to the natural course of things." The "natural course of things," according to British politicians and British theorists of free trade, required the US to supply Britain with agricultural goods and raw materials and to import, rather than make, all of its machinery and manufactured goods.

John Adams wrote in 1819: "I am old enough to remember the war of 1745, and its end; the war of 1755, and its close; the war of 1775, and its termination; the war of 1812, and its pacification...The British manufacturers, immediately after the peace, disgorged upon us all their stores of merchandise and manufactures, not only without profit, but at certain loss for a time, with the express purpose of annihilating all our manufacturers, and ruining all our manufactories." In India and Ireland, the British imperial authorities actually outlawed the native textile industries. Like Britain, the US protected and subsidised its industries while it was a developing country, switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out by the second world war and the US enjoyed a virtual monopoly in many manufacturing sectors.

The revival of Europe and Japan by the 1970s eliminated these monopoly profits, and the support for free trade of industrial-state voters in the American midwest and northeast declined. Today, support for free-trade globalism in the US comes chiefly from the commodity-exporting south and west and from US multinationals which have moved their factories to low-wage countries like Mexico and China. Like 19th-century Britain, 21st-century America tells countries that are trying to catch up: do what we say, not what we did."

Hence, in view of these facts, it would appear that rather than hating America, it is the nationalists who love it...and the free trade apostles who hate it and its people.

36 posted on 07/12/2006 10:51:51 AM PDT by Paul Ross (We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment.-Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
FYI

My post #36 might be of use for you.

37 posted on 07/12/2006 11:46:44 AM PDT by Paul Ross (We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment.-Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross; Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; Jhoffa_; FITZ; arete; FreedomPoster; Red Jones; ...
[...]
In the US in the 1790s, the brilliant first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, laid out a programme for the industrialisation of the country by means of infant-industry protection and other policies. Hamilton's programme was developed in the next generation by Henry Clay, under the name of "the American System," and implemented under Clay's disciple and admirer Abraham Lincoln and his successors during the period between the 1860s and the 1940s, when the US became the planet's leading manufacturing economy behind a high wall of tariffs.

The lessons of the "American school" of "national economy," transmitted to Germany by Friedrich List, formed the basis of state-sponsored industrialisation in Wilhelmine Germany. Moreover, during a visit to Germany in the 1870s, Toshimichi Okubo, one of the leaders of the Meiji Restoration, became acquainted with the Hamilton-List tradition. Returning to Japan, Okubo founded the ministry of home affairs, which promoted Japanese industry, and in 1874 issued an equivalent of Hamilton's 1791 Report on Manufactures, in the form of his influential Proposal for Industrial Promotion.

By the early 20th century, then, the US, Germany and Japan had successfully used strategic economics to catch up with Britain and (in the case of the first two nations) to surpass it. Even Britain's dominions of Australia and Canada, emulating American and German practice rather than British theory, insisted on the right to use tariffs to keep out goods from Britain and establish their own industrial base. Not that Britain had any right to complain. From the Tudors until the early 19th century, Britain used various protectionist devices to promote its own industries. The 18th-century prime minister Robert Walpole, remembered chiefly today as a corrupt politician pilloried by Alexander Pope, turns out, according to Chang, to have been an industrial-policy mastermind who inspired Alexander Hamilton.
[...]

Excellent!

38 posted on 07/12/2006 12:13:55 PM PDT by A. Pole ("Gay marriage" - Karl Rove's conspiracy to defeat Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
When I was a teenager, I was 'forced' to see Rachel Carson's propaganda piece, Silent Spring.

In 5th or 6th grade I had to watch "the last passenger pigeon", don't remember any of it except it was very sad and it was Nixon's fault (or something like that).

39 posted on 07/12/2006 12:27:40 PM PDT by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
When I was a teenager, I was 'forced' to see Rachel Carson's propaganda piece, Silent Spring. I am only now realizing what a piece of work that was.

100 Things You Should Know About DDT.

40 posted on 07/12/2006 1:19:04 PM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson