Prof: Force Students to See Gore Movie, Christians Cause 'Indescribable Tortures and Agony'

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.'

Ravi Batra is not credible. He has produced books every so often sensationalising economic problems and they all have the same theme-DISASTER is just around the corner just plug in the next year. He is a joke. As is any belief that real wages have fallen. We have welfare recipients driving cars, watching color tvs, living in air conditioned apartments, and who have ALL the food they need.

If we are falling behind why is it that the US is still the most desirable nation for immigrants?

It is also FALSE that we had a "practically closed economy" such a statement would only be made by someone who could count on his hearers not knowing much American history. It must IGNORE the Cotton industry during the 17-1800s, the steel industry later, the oil industry, British investment during the 1800s, the tobacco industry, sugar well almost all our history in fact.

McKinley's rhetoric is nothing but.

Tom Friedman tries to peddle the same baloney that you appear to defend. He sees nothing but gloom and destruction.

The Wikipedia quote sets up straw man after straw man to demolish. WHO believes there was an era of free trade in the US? No one I know or have heard. What major scholar has EVER put the entire blame for the Depression on Smoot-Hawley or for WWII? All I have seen is reference to it as a FACTOR leading up to the Depression.

Hamilton's program was designed to remove the distortions caused by British colonial policy and was only mildly protectionist (rates around 15%). He designed the tariff MAINLY as a revenue tariff to fund the government. Hamilton's goal was to allow the US to develop a balanced economy less dependent upon agricultural exports. After him the leaders used the tariff as a means of assisting political allies as much as achieving a national goal. This is one of the major problems of protectionism it leaves the realm of economics and moves into politics. The other is that is slows innovation by protecting industries whose time has passed. And by reducing international trade it prevents the international division of labor from achieving its full extent and thereby lowers productivity and income as a whole.

You question "Why are there lower income Americans" is too stupid even to address.

As is any belief that real wages have fallen.

The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics admits that they have fallen 4% or so over the past five years.

Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages are below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. See, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey. 2006 http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm.
Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389. See U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. 2004. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html.

We have welfare recipients driving cars, watching color tvs, living in air conditioned apartments, and who have ALL the food they need.

That has nothing to do with wages, and everything to do with those who do work being robbed still more by our never-shrinking Federal and State Governments.

If we are falling behind why is it that the US is still the most desirable nation for immigrants?

Because we just happen to still be better in decline, than those nations they flee, as you alluded to. That should not be difficult to grasp.

It is also FALSE that we had a "practically closed economy" such a statement would only be made by someone who could count on his hearers not knowing much American history.

Actually he is accurate with regard to having a protectionist structure for imports/exports. Designed to encourage self-sufficiency. Let's see where you go wrong:

It must IGNORE the Cotton industry during the 17-1800s

Nope. Not ignored. Just proving we were exporters, not importers....right?

the steel industry later

Again...net exporters.

the oil industry

Again net exporters until, what, the 60's/70's.

British investment during the 1800s

Investment was not precluded...because it aided the general policy of industrialization and self-sufficiency. As you see, being protectionist is hardly isolationist.

the tobacco industry

Again net exporters to this very day...and subsidized I might add.

sugar well almost all our history in fact.

Yes, more exports. You made my case. Thank you.

McKinley's rhetoric is nothing but.

No, he was in full accord with the Republican Congress, and the Party Platform, and really meant it.

Tom Friedman tries to peddle the same baloney that you appear to defend.

What are you smoking? He is the primary "free trade" and "globalist" advocate and celebrant that the Administration relies on. Everyone in the White House has been told to read his books, such as "The World is Flat" and so on. Policy after policy Friedman pushes winds up being the W policy. From the Mideast to China.

He sees nothing but gloom and destruction.

Gee, someone better tell W to stop promoting Friedman's views then.

The Wikipedia quote sets up straw man after straw man to demolish. WHO believes there was an era of free trade in the US? No one I know or have heard.

You sure seemed to imply such.

What major scholar has EVER put the entire blame for the Depression on Smoot-Hawley or for WWII? All I have seen is reference to it as a FACTOR leading up to the Depression.

Correct, but the pack of baying free trade hounds here at FR will undoubtedly ostracize you forevermore...

Hamilton's program was designed to remove the distortions caused by British colonial policy and was only mildly protectionist (rates around 15%).

Mild or not, it was very effective.

He designed the tariff MAINLY as a revenue tariff to fund the government.

And to unify it. To bind North and South, East and West, Farmer and City folk. And it worked.

Hamilton's goal was to allow the US to develop a balanced economy less dependent upon agricultural exports.

He also was extremely keen on kick-starting domestic manufactures.

After him the leaders used the tariff as a means of assisting political allies as much as achieving a national goal. This is one of the major problems of protectionism it leaves the realm of economics and moves into politics.

The same can be said of the Free Trade apostles.

The other is that is slows innovation by protecting industries whose time has passed.

That can indeed happen. But that is why trust busting and other spurs to competition need to be embraced. Foreign oligolopolies are hardly boons to true competiton. Once the U.S. producers fail to be a credible supplier of anything, the prices go up. Oil is a perfect example.

And by reducing international trade it prevents the international division of labor from achieving its full extent and thereby lowers productivity and income as a whole.

The last point is simply laughable. "International Division of Labor." Get real. This is not about labor efficiency. The U.S. was it. The height of productivity. We are even now considered more efficient than our other peer competitor...Japan...who we essentially created, as they followed Arthur Deming's formula.

No, this is really about nation's playing tug of war to get industry...and the U.S. abdicating its responsibility. It is being minded by a bunch of deluded doctrinnaire dilletantes and self-rationalizers and apologists for their devastating trade failures.

Your question "Why are there lower income Americans" is too stupid even to address.

Hence you lose the point, that your free trade is in fact depleting American wealth.

In order to understand the HH figures you have to disaggregate the numbers. If you do so you will see that the number of members making up a HH has dropped. It is foolish to pretend that Americans are not better of financially than they were in the 70s or earlier.

My example of welfare recipients demonstrated that even the lowest on the economic totem pole have lives better than the vast majority of people around the world and better than those of Americans past.

We are not in decline except to the Leftists. What nation has taken the lead over us?

It is false that we have EVER had a closed economy.

Perhaps I am thinking of the wrong economist I thought you were referring to a NYTimes columnist.

I never implied any such thing as that we had a golden age of Free Trade apparently you wanted to believe that.

In spite of the Hamiltonian task the US ran trade deficits almost constantly until the around the 1870s. War may have caused some change in that tendency. But Hamilton was not a big advocate of protection for a mature economy and was much more of an advocate of bounties to develop new industry. His reliance on the tariff was necessitated by the need to pay for the fed gov and to unravel the net of British colonial impacts on the shape of the economy. He would not be an advocate of protectionism in a mature, modern economy clearly understanding the fact that it reduces income at home and abroad by distorting the allocation of economic inputs and contravening the Division of Labor.

Free Trade does not favor any sector at the expense of the whole. It favors sectors and BENEFITS the whole.

Free Traders at FR will not contradict my statement that Smoot was a mere factor in the Depression. They understand quite well that Fed mistakes and the Dust Bowl among other things had major roles as well. I have NEVER seen one entirely blame Smoot.

Hamilton's major tool in binding the Nation together was the Constitution itself and the Assumption of State Revolutionary War debts. Actually the tariff worked against that goal by using the tariffs paid by the South to aid Northern industry. It became a major complaint later.

The Division of Labor carried to its fullest extent internationally in no way implies that US labor is not the most productive. The Theory of Comparative Advantage shows that it benefits both nations to trade even if one has an Absolute Advantage in producing every product. By adopting policies which work against the Division of Labor you lower income everywhere at home and abroad. International trade INCREASES overall income at home and abroad. Restricting the Export Cycle does the same. As the most dynamic economy in history the US's role is in the creation of new products and industries. Protectionism works against its very strength and is turned to only by backward and undeveloped nations. Lower income Americans benefit more than any other from Free Trade since it maximizes their purchasing power and lowers inflation rates. There are ALWAYS going to be lower income Americans and Free Trade has nothing to do with their existence or persistent existence. The largest reason they exist is because of their cultures and mindset.

We are not in decline except to the Leftists. What nation has taken the lead over us?

Take it up with the Census Bureau and the BLS. The Middle Class is taking it in the shorts, and you are totally misreading that. Evidence? The gross number of part time and second jobs having to be undertaken by labor, both in the aggregate and as a percentage of the labor force. These represent significant signs of financial distress ratcheting up.

It is false that we have EVER had a closed economy.

Definitional confusion. He is alluding to the protectionist orientation of the country which made an effective barrier to most industrial foreign import competition. Not investment. Clearly, he was accurate in that regard.

Perhaps I am thinking of the wrong economist I thought you were referring to a NYTimes columnist.

Thomas Friedman of the NYT is the one that the Administration clearly is enamored of. Talk to them about it. I have written often about how offensive it is to have this character lionized...and relied upon as the intellectual well-spring of the Administration. I'm astonished this is all news to you. It is no wonder though that a Faux-Conservative administration which won't declare war on liberals (because they are in fact liberal themselves) find common cause with the Happy-Talk Friedmanites of the MSM. I like this reviewer's take on Friedman reprinted in the above link:

Now, when I read Thomas Friedman - and here I've got to be honest, I love Thomas Friedman - I expect to be uplifted, invigorated, refreshed, and made to see the world anew. Thomas Friedman has got to be the most unflichingly optimistic, gullible, apologetic, understanding, patient, and senseless journalist out there.
He also muddles every one of his points with mislaid metaphors and overconvoluted comparisons. When I read Friedman, I expect an awful situation to be viewed through the magic prism of his "everything's all right" eye, I expect world leaders to be given a pass, and finally I expect him to state that the Indians (dots not feathers) and the Chinese work harder than Americans and in five years will have taken all of our jobs.
But why should I write such an excessively long introduction to what is, below, the true meat of my post? Because friends, as luck would have it, last night as I perused the microfiche at my local library (don't ask - I'll only say that I'm in the process of solving one of the country's great cold cases from the 19th century), I ran across one of Friedman's earliest columns, written back when he was a young writer for his high school's weekly publication, "The Garfield High Gazette". This is a miraculous find and I doubt you'll find it elsewhere on the internet. It is reprinted in full....

I never implied any such thing as that we had a golden age of Free Trade apparently you wanted to believe that.

It appeared that way based on your contextual attack on protectionist policies. Retrospectively, giving you the benefit of your disavowal, you appear to be asserting that we triumphed economically "in spite" of the protections, not because of them. Well, frankly, that is something that needs to be proved, and I don't accept it.

Those "signs" of distress are actually indications that the tax cuts are spurring more people to work more since they can keep a larger percentage of their incomes. One must ignore far too much to claim that today's Americans are not better off financially than those in the past. We have grown accustomed to so much wealth that complaining has become popular. It is also true that the labor participation rate is NOT increasing which is contrary to your view that the impoverished masses are forced to slave away more.

Only by selecting portions of the Nation's history can you call our economic policy "protectionist". As I said earlier the first century of our existence was one which routinely had trade deficits. Tariffs were not initially imposed primarily for protectionist reasons but for revenue. Protectionism is an intellectually bankrupt economic policy and tariffs were soon transformed into political instruments designed to reward PORTIONS of the nation's economy at the expense of the REST. Protectionism is Politics.

I have seen no evidence of the Administration being enamored with Friedman and have read little by him.

Free Trade has almost always been a minority view within America which has generally believed that Protectionism (the systemic increase in costs to consumers and investors) works. In actuality, it merely transfers income from consumers to SOME producers. Perhaps you have an economic theory which explains how increasing costs of inputs will increase productivity and national income. I have never seen anything close.

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.