What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire

[CNHT]

Is name-calling an effective intellectual technique for you?; is it effective for conveying the message you feel passionate about to readers of this forum?

Not like you haven't used offensive language before yourself? And what, aren't women supposed to swear? I don't see you get all huffy when Dreepa or PatK 'swears'? (i.e. Holy Shit thread) In fact people seem to like it. My words were directed at the movie, not at you, unlike some of the coercive language you have used directed at or (erroneously) attributed to me. What, it doesn't apply to you?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm expressing my doubts in a very strong way, as to the agenda of the people who made this movie. I can only hope people don't fall for it, but I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. If you want to help give these folks an excuse to collect more taxes that's your business.

Is confrontational language and impugning other peoples' motives in profane terms working for you?

I might ask you the same question about impugning or assigning (falsely I might add) other people's motives. I guess 'do unto others' does not apply?   

Again, that would have to be answered by yourself. Do you seek the restriction of others' freedom to post information on the "forum for freedom?"

Never have said that and you know it.

Is the "freedom" you seek one that gives you license to shout others down that differ with you? Perhaps you should evaluate if what you are for is freedom, or, rather, uniformity of views (that agree with yours).

Does that freedom only apply to you? I don't seek to prevent anyone from expressing anything. And I am not the one who has been confrontational, in PUBLIC, in front of public figures who otherwise don't know anything about me.

I didn't want to out you here Jack, but what you did on July 3rd was despicable and everyone else there agreed. So I don't feel badly about expressing my opinions about a movie on a forum. What's good for the goose, you know? I don't think you really should be talking about impugning other peoples' motives when you have sadly done worse things when it moves you. It's rather amusing to see it, after all the 'peace' talk you dish out -- sort of doesn't fit your purported philosophy of live and let live and not use force and all that stuff, now does it? I think it's called bullying. I'm not a bully but for those who didn't see the other side of this, I WILL fight back when bullied. No one, least of all me, could have ever imagined you being a bully...

Most here would prefer a situation where they could hear others' views, without being shouted down, n'est pas?

I'm not trying to shout you down -- just expressing my utter amazement that this movie and its left-wing agenda would not be recognized as a huge power grab by an even larger government than we have now. It is veritably calling for more government, more bureuacracy, more taxation, more restrictions on humanity.
Having said that I am not a polluter, don't believe in polluting, don't wish to harm nature or the land...but this doomsday stuff is really over the top.

As for me, the shouting down and abusive language is tiresome and not in keeping with a free-wheeling discussion of ideas - it will lead me to a progressive set of distancing techniques, probably firstly ignoring an abuser's posts, then progressing to clicking the ignore button, if not reporting the abuser to the forum administrator, requesting some moderating action.

Ignore away. if you want to talk about what is tiresome it's people who don't practice what they preach...make accusations that are unwarranted and then act out in public erratically. I don't know what's in the water here in NH, but lately...some of you need to take a chill pill and examine your own behavior.

I haven't shouted you down when you've used language or behavior that has offended me...not even in public. I don't like to read some of the language you or others have posted, once again, you directed at PEOPLE, but at least mine is about a movie. I did not call YOU a name. I just questioned anyone's ability to understand the agenda of some of the stuff you post. And once again, the readers of this don't know the history because I have up to now kept it to myself. However there are times when one has endured such provocation and abuse that they can no longer keep quiet.

Regarding strategies for freedom, then, of course, if one only meets with rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, soulless conservatives,

What you did to some of us on July 3rd was pretty rabid, foaming at the mouth, and definitely soulless if not cheap and nasty, especially coming from a 'peacenik' such as yourself. I have never done anything like that to anyone. For all your talk about peace and love and all that, how you could then do what you did was mind boggling. It was uncalled for. We were all minding our own business, not even talking to you. Everyone was amazed and disappointed at your behavior. It was just downright nastiness.

while you cheer on the rapacious imperial wars that are ravaging innocent lives abroad and destroying our domestic economy.

See this is exactly what I mean. Assumptions abound and then the fingerpointing starts when it's based on pure nonsense. You are attributing something to me that is completely false (and has nothing to do with the subject of the movie anyway) I haven't cheered on any 'rapacious wars'. I am working 24/7 for an anti-war candidate in case you hadn't noticed. I am condemning the 'fear factor' that this movie uses to promote its agenda. I haven't said anything about a rapacious war. Honestly Jack, don't be a drama queen.

I think there's more to be gained from the coalitioning strategy, than the "slash and burn" strategy you seem to be acting out from. Please consider this & I'm sure we could discuss this further and that I could be very effective at convincing you, but I would require a simple apology from you first for your abusive treatment. I understand that you could have just been having a bad day.

You lie down with dogs that have fleas, you will get fleas.

If there are any apologies in order it would be from you, to ME for your behavior on July 3rd. You seemed more concerned with smearing me and others in public for something we didn't do or say, for no apparent reason, except the 'sport' of it, when no one was paying any attention to you. (I guess that must have been the problem eh?). I sincerely think that movie is bogus, I was not impugning anyone for sport.

Yes I've been having a bad day after coming to the realization that there are a lot of hypocrites out there who would excoriate someone for 'bad language' (wow, 50 lashings with a wet noodle) while they themselves don't mind doing worse things to smear people in public, people who are standing around minding their own business.

I am smearing a movie, and asking (rhetorically) what the motive would be for posting such a movie. AS in, 'do you really believe this stuff?' Rhetorical questions offend you yet nasty behavior towards others in public is not out of bounds?

You then go into a diatribe on censorship (while suggesting I be censored when I've not said anything of the kind) and going into your holier-than-thou mode.

As you may have noted, I did not before this bring up that incident because I felt it best to be adult about it and to let it go, and consider the source, as all the bystanders suggested I do. But if you are going to be outraged because I used the word 'bullshit', well I think it bears discussion.

My suggestion is please stop attributing things to people they have never said or done so that you may then use your false assumptions to take cheap shots at them in public. There seems to be an epidemic of this lately. Furthermore, if you are going to go around preaching 'the end of the world, peace, love, non-aggression, and religiosity', then at least try to practice it in reality?

Practice what you preach and you will be taken more seriously.   

[jaqeboy]

I guess I generally have my answer. Remember, I just ask you if your approaches are working for you and offering assistance in increasing effectiveness. One way of being more effective as a critic, for example, would be to actually see the movie you want to slam. The opportunity will be there in Keene to even accost the filmmakers who will be there for Q & A - I plan to ask them some tough questions. You can ask them, for example, if they get their money from the Rockefeller Brothers, Ford, etc. They claim they spent their savings making the film.

Repetition of statements that you witnessed me committing some shameful act might be effective with some, but I doubt with your readership on this forum.

I'm trying to remember what I did on July 3rd - not much, though I was down at Arms Park late afternoon/early evening for the Independence Day celebration and fireworks. I do recall asking for a sanitary wipe after Bill Richardson grabbed my hand and shook it. That seemed appropriate because he was a particularly oily politician and I thought it was a good yuk. When you mentioned that you'd shake the hand of even a Democrat, I believe I responded that, "oh, I'd ask for a wipe after shaking any politician's hand!" (See the stories about how they are doing the same to prevent catching anything from the people they shake hands with) Did we have any other encounter at all? - as I recall things, you barely said hello. I believe I was home all day til the Arms Park thing and went home afterwards - oh yeah, I bought a hot dog there, saw a friend, listened to the National Guard band and watched the fireworks. If you care to review my indiscretions with me and you think it would be that embarrassing to me, we could talk this over personally (Did I moon him as well as express the desire to clean my hand? If I did, I forget - I wasn't even drinking, so I doubt I did).

I just think you would benefit from evaluating failed approaches - the reason for my response to your lengthy attacks. The whole movement started as a coalitioning drive to unite the then (1969) left and right to oppose state power. That strategy is often not understood by some coming into the movement more recently. I could probably find some of the old papers on it and post them, but for now, I'll assume you are on a different mission and leave it at that.

Back to the movie discussion!

[jaqeboy]

Well said Jack. 

Thanks, TS - trying to get to the truth of things without frantic arm-waving here and encouraging open-minded evaluation and intelligent questioning, rather than an approach that says:

"I am smearing a movie [that I haven't seen], and asking (rhetorically) what the motive would be for posting such a movie."

"I doubt it... you don't have to see this kind of junk in its entirety to know what the agenda is."

"how could anyone purporting to be for 'freedom' post such bullshit to a forum called "NH FREE"?"

Here's for freedom to say unpopular things ( in a gentlemanly and friendly way ) ! Others who are abusers - OFF WITH THEIR HEADS (or maybe just a smite or two  )

[d_goddard]

Jack is quite correct, in that it makes no sense to disparage a movie that one has not watched for oneself. Moreover, making ad-hominem attacks on people for even showing the movie is not going to convince anyone that the film is terribly flawed (not to mention, such attacks are rather disrespectful). Jack, you get big points in my book for being respectful and engaging, despite slings and arrows.

CNHT is quite correct that the basic premises underlying the message of the film are erroneous, and that most viewers will be more likely to accept authoritarian solutions, based on the fear and powerlessness that the movie attempts to instill. Jane, you get points in my book for being -- well, correct!

With respect to "Peak Oil", to take the medical analogy from the article Insurgent's post more correctly, this is like a doctor informing you you're definitely going to die -- he's just not sure if it will be in 5 years or 50. Yes, we'll run out of economically viable oil either around 2040 or, more likely, 2100. Even Canada's tar sands are becoming economically viable these days, due simply to the price pressure on oil elsewhere. Hell, there's an oil boom going on in Alberta as we speak, complete with boom towns and hyperinflation of the prices of drinking alcohol and prostitutes. The incentive to develop the technology to get at that oil even more cheaply is enormous.

For the record, I saw the movie on YouTube (OK, I sat through about 60% of it before being unable to eat any more tripe). It seems to have since been removed; the trailer is still there, though.

[jaqeboy]

More info just received on the film:

What a Way to Go features interviews with noted authors Daniel Quinn, Derrick Jensen, Jerry Mander, Richard Heinberg, William Catton, Paul Roberts, Chellis Glendinning, Thomas Berry, Richard Manning and Ran Prieur, and scientists William Schlesinger, Stuart Pimm, Douglas Crawford-Brown, and Gerald Cecil. It looks head on at our present global predicament, as oil depletion, climate change, species extinction and population overshoot converge in a "perfect storm" of cataclysmic dimensions.

THIS NEW DOCUMENTARY EXPLORES THE COMING DEMISE OF THE AMERICAN LIFESTYLE

What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire reveals an even more "Inconvenient Truth"

Produced independently by Sally Erickson and Tim Bennett, this personal essay explores the cultural stories and assumptions that have brought us to this point, and provides a larger context for thinking about, and feeling our way through our global situation.

"perhaps the most important media message of our time"

~ Jan Lundberg at CultureChange.org

"Nothing less than a 123-minute cat scan of the planet and its twenty-first century human and non-human condition."

~ Carolyn Baker, CarolynBaker.org

[CNHT]

I guess I generally have my answer. Remember, I just ask you if your approaches are working for you and offering assistance in increasing effectiveness. One way of being more effective as a critic, for example, would be to actually see the movie you want to slam. The opportunity will be there in Keene to even accost the filmmakers who will be there for Q & A - I plan to ask them some tough questions. You can ask them, for example, if they get their money from the Rockefeller Brothers, Ford, etc. They claim they spent their savings making the film.

They are just a symptom of the problem so why bother questioning them? Once again, I don't like the premise of the movie, and rhetorically, wondered if you also believed in it...since there was no preface to that effect. I don't believe in accosting people. I don't even do 'gotcha' radio shows.

Repetition of statements that you witnessed me committing some shameful act might be effective with some, but I doubt with your readership on this forum.

Effective in what way? Just explaining my dismay at the fact you'd do such a thing but then be upset that I said the word 'bullshit'. I did not go into detail about it. But felt it would help to understand my view that while you pretend to be Mr. Peacenik you are not above provoking people needlessly when they are doing or saying nothing to hurt you. Otherwise it would have gone unmentioned. I don't share the 'tattletale' mentality that some have displayed of late.

I do recall asking for a sanitary wipe after Bill Richardson grabbed my hand and shook it.

No Jack, I have witnesses. YOU did not ask for one, you asked US if now we needed a 'sanitary wipe' after shaking his hand. I understood perfectly why you did what you did...and so did everyone else. (I actually did not shake hands with anyone, because I think I had my head in the truck and a box in my hand when he was doing that, but he did others..and then we talked about supporting RP) I actually felt sorry for Mr R that you said that as he seems like a nice enough man and did not deserve that disrespect.

Did we have any other encounter at all? - as I recall things, you barely said hello.

Exactly. Minding my own business, just as I said. Not fingerpointing, whispering, then making snide comments in front of national figures to try to embarrass people for things they've not said or done.

I believe I was home all day til the Arms Park thing and went home afterwards - oh yeah, I bought a hot dog there, saw a friend, listened to the National Guard band and watched the fireworks.

You're very innocent aren't you. And I never would have brought this up except for your whining about the word 'bullshit'. Now if I were to borrow some of the tactics I abhor, I could go into a diatribe about how you are a chauvnist and hate women and don't think they should 'swear', but, I think you are merely someone who is supersenstive about certain things perecieved done to you but you simply don't afford others the same courtesy.

If you care to review my indiscretions with me and you think it would be that embarrassing to me, we could talk this over personally (Did I moon him as well as express the desire to clean my hand? If I did, I forget - I wasn't even drinking, so I doubt I did).

Once again, I never intended to bring it up anywhere else or to be 'embarrassing' to you. Apparently your behavior, while it may have been an attempt to be funny, might have been embarrassing but you did that to yourself. It certainly was seen as an attempt to embarrass others. Once again, it might help to look in the mirror.

I am very even tempered and can take a lot. But there comes a point when one can no longer endure provocations of that sort. Putting words into people's mouths, assigning opinions, and such, and then proudly tattletaling them as fact in this or other ways, well those who know me know that when I finally explode it's for a darn good reason.

Back to the movie discussion!

I think I know very well what 'coalitioning' is about as I have been doing it for 20 years in NH and never had a problem.

I still maintain the premise of the movie is bogus and my question to you is do you believe it?

I think if I had posted it I would have prefaced it with 'look at this bunk'. But since you didn't, I had no way of knowing how you felt about it.

[EthanAllen]

With respect to "Peak Oil", to take the medical analogy from the article Insurgent's post more correctly, this is like a doctor informing you you're definitely going to die -- he's just not sure if it will be in 5 years or 50. Yes, we'll run out of economically viable oil either around 2040 or, more likely, 2100. Even Canada's tar sands are becoming economically viable these days, due simply to the price pressure on oil elsewhere. Hell, there's an oil boom going on in Alberta as we speak, complete with boom towns and hyperinflation of the prices of drinking alcohol and prostitutes. The incentive to develop the technology to get at that oil even more cheaply is enormous.

Dennis-

Unfortunately your analogy is wrong. The Peak Oil theory is based on the peak of the discovery curve and then the use of mathematical formulas to project when the peak oil production curve will be. You can't "produce" what you haven't "discovered". The theory was articulated by a geo-physicist at Shell named Hubbert. He postulated in the 50's when the peak oil production curve of the lower 48 states was going to be based on the discovery curve from the past - which proved to be true.

So it doesn't matter what the price is, the total rate of extraction at peak oil will never be higher than at peak. Oil from shales is a bit of a different question.

[CNHT]

Jack is quite correct, in that it makes no sense to disparage a movie that one has not watched for oneself. Moreover, making ad-hominem attacks on people for even showing the movie is not going to convince anyone that the film is terribly flawed (not to mention, such attacks are rather disrespectful). Jack, you get big points in my book for being respectful and engaging, despite slings and arrows.

CNHT is quite correct that the basic premises underlying the message of the film are erroneous, and that most viewers will be more likely to accept authoritarian solutions, based on the fear and powerlessness that the movie attempts to instill. Jane, you get points in my book for being -- well, correct!

With respect to "Peak Oil", to take the medical analogy from the article Insurgent's post more correctly, this is like a doctor informing you you're definitely going to die -- he's just not sure if it will be in 5 years or 50. Yes, we'll run out of economically viable oil either around 2040 or, more likely, 2100. Even Canada's tar sands are becoming economically viable these days, due simply to the price pressure on oil elsewhere. Hell, there's an oil boom going on in Alberta as we speak, complete with boom towns and hyperinflation of the prices of drinking alcohol and prostitutes. The incentive to develop the technology to get at that oil even more cheaply is enormous.

For the record, I saw the movie on YouTube (OK, I sat through about 60% of it before being unable to eat any more tripe). It seems to have since been removed; the trailer is still there, though.

Thanks Denis....and thanks for not being offended by my use of the word 'bullshit' to describe another Al Gore wannabe movie.

Once again, if one is going to try to look 'gentlemanly' on a forum, why not do it in real life too?

I guess when I made that comment that I thought Jack was such a nice person in real life that I could not understand his use of certain language on the forum (and then worse suggesting or implying someone else had said them) he couldn't resist doing something even more offensive in person too... It was almost as if that statement were a challenge to him...

I'll show her, by cracky, I can be just as nasty in person! 

[jaqeboy]

Jack is quite correct, in that it makes no sense to disparage a movie that one has not watched for oneself. Moreover, making ad-hominem attacks on people for even showing the movie is not going to convince anyone that the film is terribly flawed (not to mention, such attacks are rather disrespectful). Jack, you get big points in my book for being respectful and engaging, despite slings and arrows.

Thanks, DG.

CNHT is quite correct that the basic premises underlying the message of the film are erroneous, and that most viewers will be more likely to accept authoritarian solutions, based on the fear and powerlessness that the movie attempts to instill. Jane, you get points in my book for being -- well, correct!

...and here is where the challenge lies for libertarians that understand the coalitioning strategy (or for newbies that haven't tried that approach yet) - how to communicate to a crowd that is anti-state on some issues, but who foolishly offer statist solutions. Remember, they are individual people who think, as well as feel - they are not monolithically one identity, just like we (you and I as individuals) are not. I announce this video showing (I'm not a sponsor of it and I haven't seen it) to invite people to exercise their communication and persuasion skills or simply to observe, if they don't feel empowered yet to attempt persuasion. Since we know so much now about how the propaganda technique of instilling fear and powerlessness works (see 9/11 follow on), we will be ever more capable in working through it with the audience members of What a Way.

With respect to "Peak Oil", to take the medical analogy from the article Insurgent's post more correctly, this is like a doctor informing you you're definitely going to die -- he's just not sure if it will be in 5 years or 50. Yes, we'll run out of economically viable oil either around 2040 or, more likely, 2100. Even Canada's tar sands are becoming economically viable these days, due simply to the price pressure on oil elsewhere. Hell, there's an oil boom going on in Alberta as we speak, complete with boom towns and hyperinflation of the prices of drinking alcohol and prostitutes. The incentive to develop the technology to get at that oil even more cheaply is enormous.

For the record, I saw the movie on YouTube (OK, I sat through about 60% of it before being unable to eat any more tripe). It seems to have since been removed; the trailer is still there, though.

I'm not necessarily a proponent of peak oil theory, but I'm open to learning the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. It's difficult to get to the truth of some of these issues because of the fog of deception that people with agendas add as an overlay over the facts. (see also Exxon-Mobil funding of global warming commentators).

What I am a proponent of is community and civilization, and that's made up of people, people like the ones that will attend this film. If one chooses to reject people because of a label they have assigned to them en-masse without even meeting any one of them as individuals, they lose out on the possibility of developing community and consequently on the possibility of having an impact on a better civilization (ie, you have to remain a hermit). I've observed this to be a problem in the movement, and want to encourage others to mix with the "outsiders" a little - you might actually meet someone you like and enjoy (and can persuade to join you in life and in this movement towards a better, freer society)!

[error]

Remember, they are individual people who think, as well as feel - they are not monolithically one identity, just like we (you and I as individuals) are not.

Too many of them think of themselves as a collective. How do you propose to fix that?

[jaqeboy]

Repetition of statements that you witnessed me committing some shameful act might be effective with some, but I doubt with your readership on this forum.

I do recall asking for a sanitary wipe after Bill Richardson grabbed my hand and shook it.

No Jack, I have witnesses. YOU did not ask for one, you asked US if now we needed a 'sanitary wipe' after shaking his hand.... I actually felt sorry for Mr R that you said that as he seems like a nice enough man and did not deserve that disrespect.

So, that IS what you were referring to, eh? And, btw, I wasn't sure I said it loudly enough for him to hear me. The man thrust himself at me as I looked up and I have no desire to shake any oily politician's hand, and, of course he, of all people, does not deserve respect from me or any other libertarian.

We're libertarians, not suck-ups to the powerful - our job is to make sure they don't run our lives, not to choose the hand that will feed us. That's something to be proud of, not ashamed of! I'll bring wet-wipes for all next time I go to a venue with politicians present!

[jaqeboy]

Remember, they are individual people who think, as well as feel - they are not monolithically one identity, just like we (you and I as individuals) are not.

Too many of them think of themselves as a collective. How do you propose to fix that?

You are invited to exercise your powers of persuasion. Carpool anyone?

[error]

I exercise my powers of persuasion all the time. Perhaps you've seen me do it.

[CNHT]

Too many of them think of themselves as a collective. How do you propose to fix that?

[EthanAllen]

Remember, they are individual people who think, as well as feel - they are not monolithically one identity, just like we (you and I as individuals) are not.

Too many of them think of themselves as a collective. How do you propose to fix that?

By understanding that a trade-off between equality and freedom (the same for the individual vs. the collective) is a false choice. People voluntarily choose to live in communities because each has rationally determined that it is advantages to live in proximity for our individual survival.