RSS Feed MenuIt’s Earth Day. Republicans can ignore it as a made-up event with links to old hippies, or we can embrace the role of stewards for our shared home. I vote for the latter.
Several times in the past I have urged the GOP to put aside its aversion to a certain presidential loser/Nobel Prize winner and focus on the planet, not one personality. Frankly, I am tired of beating that drum.
True, the job is not done, and there is plenty of Al-Goraphobia out there. Congressman Bob Inglis put it well here:
All we can see is Al Gore, we cannot get past him. At the highest level, this environmental crisis is a spiritual problem. Can we overcome the hardness of spirit that prevents us from hearing those we disagree with?
He who angers you, controls you.
Even when Gore undoubtedly gets it right (as he did when he recently pumped his own money into adult stem cell research), some on the Right worry that if Gore likes it, perhaps they’ve got it wrong. For many, the quest to topple the Goracle will undoubtedly go on, no matter what else gets torn up in the process.
I, for one, am moving on. I won’t worry about Gore and I won’t worry about the people who still worry about Gore.
And may I suggest one good way for you to move on this Earth Day as well. Disney is releasing a film today sharing the same name as our third rock from the Sun. There’s no Al Gore. In fact, there are no people in the picture at all, except the booming voice of James Earl Jones. This movie isn’t perfect—like a kid in a candy store the producers try to cram a few too many tasty cinematic gumballs in their mouths—but this greatest hits collection from the Discovery Channel planet earth mini-series includes some stunning shots that indeed really should be seen on a big screen.
The result of over five arduous years filming across the globe, earth reminds us humans that the planet spins to rhythms and seasons all its own — even if we ignore that fact in a 24/7, can’t see the stars at night, eat strawberries in December urban bubble. There are amazing time lapse sequences, spectacular aerial views of massive migrations, captivating slow motion chase scenes, and lots and lots of cute baby animals.
The script and editing seem to target an 8 to 12 year old audience, but parents will find plenty to enjoy too. Moms and dads might even find themselves, like me, remembering childhood experiences that set a love of nature in stone.
One of the perks of visiting my grandparents in rural East Texas was the chance to enter a Wild Kingdom. While Grandmommy and Granddaddy only got one station on their 19 inch black and white TV (we had all three channels in color back home), that station manager was smart enough to book the syndicated adventures of Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler. (FYI for you Beltway denizens, Fowler hails from the D.C. suburb of Falls Church and first experienced nature along Four Mile Run.)
After excitedly watching Jim wrestle crocodiles and chase baboons while Marlin waited safely in the truck, my sister, cousins and I would head off into the woods and sandy “desert” around the little country house searching out adventures of our own. Today’s children, suffering from what some researchers have labeled videophilia, likely now require more of a jolt to get them outside than Mutual of Omaha and a rooftop antenna can provide. Disney’s visual feast earth may just do the trick though.
So, today don’t think about that man. Instead, help your kids get to know their planet—either at the theater or, better yet, outside in some woods that you’ve almost forgotten were there. After all, we are only leasing this Earth from our children. Let’s return it to them in better shape than we found it, and let’s instill the love of nature that they will need when they then lease it from our grandkids.
nealjking // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:08 am
It is indeed curious that so many Republicans are fixated on Al Gore. Isn’t it normally the WINNER of an election that moves on, while the LOSER winds himself up in frustration and “would have / should have”s?Maybe because Gore has, indeed, picked himself up, dusted himself off, and started all over again. He has refused to define himself as a loser all the rest of his life.Maybe there is indeed something that the GOP could learn from him.
sinz54 // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:57 pm
nealjking: Al Gore is a constant reminder to the Republicans of the disastrous election recount mess in Florida in 2000; and of the way that Democrats tried to disparage Bush’s very legitimacy as President, until 9-11 brought some semblance of national unity back to the nation.
barker13 // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:20 pm
So, John… tell us a little about your personal… er… carbon footprint.You married? Got kids? If so (to either or both) make that a little about your family’s carbon footprint.You own a home? How many square feet? More than one home? How’bout cars. What’a ya drive? (Number and type of vehicles owned/leased for the household?)Do you fly much? Ever fly in private jets? Corporate jets? Foundation jets?Tell us a little bit about your “energy lifestyle,” John.BILL
John Murdock // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Ah, the “are you a hypocrite” question. Well, seeing as I essentially asked Al Gore the same question face to face, I suppose turnabout is fair play. Hypocrisy is not irrelevant, but generally another’s hypocrisy is used to justify one’s own shortcomings. I think to myself, “Sure, I do X, Y, and Z, but at least I don’t claim to be holy like ole so and so who does it too.” Thus, I avoid facing the more direct question, “Should I personally be doing X, Y, and Z?”That being said, let me address the direct questions posed.(1) Not married. No kids. (Open to both possibilities.)(2) Don’t own (smart enough to sniff out some bubbles). Rent a place under 1,000 square feet.(3) Don’t own a car. I am lucky enough to live in a city with decent public transportation so that I’ve avoided car ownership for 7 years. I’ve owned cars in the past and I’ll probably own them in the future. Now, I am happily car-free though.(4) I fly coach. Mostly for work, though sometimes for pleasure. Never been on a corporate jet. My longest flight was to Rwanda a couple years ago to visit ministries my church is involved with. (5) I’m glad that conservative deregulators have provided me some control over the source of my electrons. I’ve purchased wind and landfill gas fired electricity in the past (not sure which I’m on now). My electricity bill is about $65 a month.Having been to the developing world on several occassions, I know I am filthy rich and that I live with a carbon footprint that dwarfs that of the 2 billion plus who live on less than $2 a day. My lavish lifestyle raises plenty of questions, and I don’t have all the answers. I hope my own hypocrisy does not prevent you from examining your own life though. You don’t have to answer to me, but I believe we will all have to answer to future generations and to the Creator who made what we now steward. My answers to those questioners are still pretty suspect, but I don’t think it will do me much good to say that Al Gore’s footprint was bigger than mine.
sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:11 am
Having Al Gore as the self-appointed Jeremiah of global warming has wrecked any chance of getting the GOP base to even listen to the possibility that global warming might be occurring (let alone that humans are causing it, let alone that humans need to do something about it).It would be like the GOP making Dick Cheney, who has a domestic approval rating even lower than Bush’s, its spokesperson on health care reform. The messenger is poisoning the message.
barker13 // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:25 am
Re: John Murdock; 8:28 PM –”Ah, the “are you a hypocrite” question.”Yep. Just curious. (*SHRUG*)”Well, seeing as I essentially asked Al Gore the same question face to face, I suppose turnabout is fair play.”Exactly! Good for you, John! BTW… not to belabor the point, but as a frequent “contributor” to this site, I sincerely and respectfully urge you to urge Frum and your other colleagues to cease and desist with the “disappearing” of posts that are civil and on point yet somehow rub those with the power to delete the wrong way. Such tactics are to me and should be to you extremely distasteful, showing intellectual weakness as well as lack to the courage to put their convictions to the test when questioned or contradicted.Anyway… continuing on this thread topic…”…Rent a place under 1,000 square feet….Don’t own a car….I fly coach. Mostly for work, though sometimes for pleasure. Never been on a corporate jet….I’ve purchased wind and landfill gas fired electricity in the past (not sure which I’m on now). My electricity bill is about $65 a month.”Thank you, John! Nope. You’re not a hypocrite; indeed, you come across (to me at least) as a stand up guy.”I know I am filthy rich and that I live with a carbon footprint that dwarfs that of the 2 billion plus who live on less than $2 a day.”Count your blessing, John. (And I mean that sincerely, not taking a shot at the religious angle you push.) Ya ever see “Life of Brian,” John? If so, you may remember this line……but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?(*GRIN*)I bet you can race ahead and say you get my point.(*WINK*)What’s that figure bandied about… something about how America uses approximately 25% of the world’s resources? Whatever the specifics on that, what’s often overlooked is that America provides/produces something like 25% of the world’s GDP.Hey… correct me if I’m wrong on that one. (*SHRUG*) But unless I’m WAY off… I trust you get the point.”I hope my own hypocrisy does not prevent you from examining your own life though.”Nope. I examine my own life constantly. One thing you and I seemingly have in common is that we’re not hypocrites and we’re willing to answer questions.(*WINK*)Thanks!BILL
barker13 // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:36 am
Re: Sinz54; 7:11 AM –Sinz. I just don’t “get” you. One moment you’re rational and reasonable… the next…(*SHRUG*)I’m open to the possibility that we’re experiencing global warming. I don’t know anyone who isn’t “open to the possibility.”I’m also open to the possibility that we’re experiencing global cooling and that this trend will continue and accelerate long term. (“Long term” meaning anywhere from 50-500 years, perhaps longer.)I believe human activity not only has the potential to effect weather patterns and global sea/air temperatures, but that our effect is minimal compared to the Sun’s effect upon our world’s ecosystems and that there’s far more that we DON’T understand about climate science and causation than we do know for certain.Hell… I even use those damned expensive squiggly light bulbs and when I’m at cruising speed my 5.7L HEMI in the charges goes down 4 cyl usage. (*WINK*)What bothers you and people like you isn’t that “we” won’t “listen” to your side of the debate, rather, what obviously annoys you is that we examine the whole spectrum of scientific evidence and theory.(*SHRUG*)Anyway… to end on a note of agreement… we both want expanded and improved nuclear generated domestic power generation – right?!(*WINK*)BILL
sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 5:25 pm
barker13: What I’ve tried to explain is that, as far as mainstream science is concerned, there is no longer any “debate” about anthropogenic global warming. You will find no papers disputing that theory in any peer-reviewed scientific journal on climatology, and none presented in any peer-reviewed scientific symposium on climatology. You will find no academies of science of any of the Western nations which are as yet unconvinced.Whatever “debate” there is left, appears to be generated by off-trail writers and a few with scientific credentials (though often not in climatology), who go on TV or create websites or hold their own well-publicized meetings, separate from mainstream scientific symposia. And by doing this, to try to create the impression in the mind of the public that this issue is still unresolved scientifically. It is not.You are welcome to go to the main Public Library in any large American city and peruse those scientific journals for yourself. Or, if you really want the truth, be willing to pay for an online subscription and you can search those journals right from your computer. You will find that what I am saying is true.Beware of anyone who talks a good game on TV, but who somehow just can’t get his papers published in a mainstream scientific journal. It is in these mainstream scientific forums, not Hannity & Colmes or Olbermann or Oprah, where cutting-edge science is found.
barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 12:27 pm
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.phphttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.phpIn any case, Sinz, I actually agree with you about the peer reviewed science vs. op-eds and such. The only problem is that – as previously noted – peer reviewed articles often conflict with other peer reviewed articles and since the layman is rarely (if ever!) competent to “self review” the nuts and bolts of the science and peer review process… (*SIGH*)… we’re left with the op-eds and “translation” of the various data analysis (which is itself only as good as the raw data and overall methodology) into plain old English.(*WINK*)ANYWAY…(*SMILE*)Shifting focus for a moment…http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124052921804450391.htmlAny thoughts?Hey… bummer that Christopher Monckton wasn’t allowed to provide counter-point to Al Gore at today’s hearings, huh? Beyond that… again, Sinz… I would like nothing better than to have easier access to “apples vs. apples” debates concerning climate change issues – scientist of certain discipline vs. scientist of same disciple – so that folks like you and I could at least be tuning in to the same debate.(*SHRUG*)BILL