Crooks and Liars: Newt Gingrich blames "Liberalism" for VA Tech massacre
Sigh.
Karl Rove, btw, seems to be a bit of a dick. Shocking, I realize. Sheryl Crow and others tried to talk to him about the science of global warming at the White House Correspondents dinner. Sherly Crow touched his arm at one point, taking Karl into a frenzy. As Josh Marshall joked with his wife, I have to say that I would not freak if Crow touched me on the arm. :)
I played golf today. An enjoyable day except for my own golf play (which was not stellar). One of my golf buddies is absolutely convinced that Rove has broken numerous laws and is deathly afraid that the Senate will actually investigate and go after him. From what I read, Bush thinks the same thing and doesn't want to fire Gonzales because he fears that will be blood in the water to go after Rove. Why not fire both and try to rescue what is left of your Presidency, Mr. Bush? Why not try to do something decent your last two years?
36 comments:
What is more astonishing is that he cannot answer the question let alone base it in facts.
My theory is that Rove is an obssessive neat-freak and must have read this:
Sheryl Crow: Toilet paper activist
Streak, I agree with you and friend. Karl probably has done illegal things and needs to get the boot. OTOH, I'll scientific advice from Sherly Crow the same day I get medical advice from Tom Cruise. I do think he could have handled it more politely.
Steve,
That post is hilarious. It reminded me of when I was in college, went to the bathroom between classes, sat down, and to my right just over the toilet paper roll, were these words: "Due to increased university expenditures, please limit yourself to one sheet."
Yeah--it bothers me, too, when pop artists are consulted more so than specialists in that particular field.
Why is some concern about overuse of toilet paper so ridiculous? Why does the mention of how much we waste resources make Sheryl Crow ridiculous?
Make no mistake, I don't think that a celebrity has any better grasp on issues than a non-celebrity, but the fact is they can actually attract attention where others cannot. Comparing Crow to Tom Cruise on this point seems a reach.
Discussing waste is not ridiculous. I am all ears, Ms. Crow. Tell me about your toilet paper reduction legislation.
I guess I'd also like to know how much energy she is conserving in her concerts. Does her equipment travel around on bikes? Are her speakers solar powered?
Her tour bus uses biodiesel.
To dismiss someone's command of an issue based on who they are seems foolish to me. The comparison of Sheryl Crow and Tom Cruise is clever, but there is an important distinction.
Tom Cruise's views of medicine are based on the doctrines of Scientology whereas Sheryl Crow's views on global warming are based on scientific consensus. Can anyone tell me what Karl Rove's understanding of the issue is based on?
As I see it, Sheryl Crow is simply using the platform that she has to bring attention to an important social issue rather than to plug vapid consumerism as so many celebrities do.
You make a valid point, but I see too many people giving credibility to what a celebrity says, based just upon their status as a celebrity. The fact that Sheryl Crow has some scientific back up and Tom Cruise doesn't make up for the fact that most people aren't going to bother to do their own research.
I am not suggesting the celebrities shut up, I am just very skeptical when they tell me what to do.
But that is not Sheryl Crow's fault. If the people are dumb or lazy, that is their fault that they listen to a celebrity.
You should be skeptical, but dismissing Sheryl Crow because she is a celebrity is the same thing, isn't it? Steve Earle has many good points about the death penalty.
I still say the Tom Cruise comparison is a stretch, at best. Many celebrities are informed and thoughtful. Cruise is neither.
How practical is it to just use one square of TP? How much water would we then have waste to get ourselves clean after that?
As for tour bus, don't you mean the plural?
TSG Backstage
As for Laurie David, her advocacy must not extend to her own family. She has campaingned for hybrid cars and increased fuel mileage.
"LARRY David couldn’t curb his enthusiasm to blow up when his beloved blue BMW 530 was dented in a Martha’s Vineyard parking lot. In what resembled a wacky scene from his HBO sitcom, the kvetching curmudgeon and his wife, Laurie, were outside a supermarket in Vineyard Haven last weekend when an out-of-control shopping cart slammed into another cart, which then crashed into David’s $75,000 vehicle."
Ok, I get it. Sheryl Crow is an idiot and all celebrities besides Charleton Heston must be ignored. And unless we are willing to completely step off the grid, we can't criticize consumption.
I am up to speed.
And yes, I am in a bad mood. But I am really regretting posting this on the blog.
I hope your mood improves. I am sorry that I was contrary. I guess that is one of my hot button issues.
We don't have to completely step off the grid, but don't tell others to not drive bad mileage cars when you are tooling around in a car that gets 19 mpg.
As for Charelton Heston, I don't even care for him all that much and wouldn't quote him as any kind of authority, except maybe on acting.
For the record, I didn't' say Crow was ridiculous. I said it bothers me when pop stars are spokespeople for issues.
I have no problem with famous people speaking out about tough issues because they will get the issue the exposure it needs whereas Dr. so-and-so, who may have the right credentials, cannot, if only for the simple fact nobody knows him or her. And it is the height of laziness because most folks aren't going to read what Dr. so-and-so says. I understand that.
I know Steve can defend himself, but I think there are more effective ways we can reduce waste rather than concentrating on toilet paper usage. Or maybe I'm missing the point.
And besides, Heston isn't the only credible celebrity, I mean, Wilford Brimley carries a great deal of weight with a lot of my shut-ins.
:)
Sorry, Steve, you and I posted at the same time. Weird.
Here is my point. Rejecting what someone says just because they are a celebrity is no better than those who listen to whatever a celebrity says.
I concede that the toilet paper argument is rather extreme, but pointing to our wasteful ways is not. You can dismiss her all you want, but that still is true. Steve, chasitising her for her tour bus seems petty, to be honest.
And finally, as ubub pointed out, the White House has said that Global Warming didn't exist, but it is Sheryl Crow who is ridiculous?
I am trying to get in a better mood. Like I said, I am not glad I posted on this. Rove is still an idiot and he has ten times the power that Sheryl Crow does.
Wilford Brimley is a very wise man.
To be fair, there are plenty of doctors that aren't always credible, especially when they are speaking outside their area of expertise. Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Laura Schlessinger come to mind. Heck, I have a JD, so I'll throw myself in there, too.
I used to think of Wilfred Brimley as the oatmeal guy. Now I think of the prescription drug policy guy. You know, "Do you or someone you love have dye-uh-beat-us?"
Streak,
I am not really disagreeing here. Addressing waste is entirely appropriate, but one's argument should be framed in something a bit less, well, ridiculous. She may be using hyperbole to make her point, but go somewhere it will make a legitimate difference.
I used to work in a sterile processing department at a hospital. They had no qualms about throwing away hundreds of dollars worth of re-sterilizable materials everyday.
That seems a more reasonable way to address wastefulness, not toilet paper usage.
And to be fair, I am not a doctor and I always speak outside of my area of expertise.
:)
Tony, I don't disagree. But I want to reiterate that the people in power--not entertainers--have put forward public policy on science that has been wrong on every count. Bush's gag rule on abortion has led to countless deaths around the world. Speaking of doctors, he appointed one to a position on reproductive health who refused to prescribe birth control to unmarried women (I am sure that didn't lead to any abortions) and counseled women experiencing PMS to read the Bible and pray. We already know their stance on Global warming--inconclusive evidence there while the science was behind Star Wars?
On every count, this administration has put into practice policies based on "ridiculous" science that has actual impact on American and world lives. Put that up against a singer who thinks we should reduce toilet paper usage. Now still tell me that the riciculous one is the singer. Seriously.
Perhaps it will help to add the following to the conservation discussion: "If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown send it down." Sorry, long day at work after which I sit down to read my favorite blog and can't help but laugh at the toilet paper thread. Don't get me wrong, just because it's funny doesn't mean it's a not a good idea. I must say I found myself squirming in my chair a little while reading Crow's article, if you know what I mean. I have lived in and visited countries that don't have a toilet paper culture. I must say, shaking hands and eating with the right hand takes on a whole new significance. That said, I'd be interested to see some reputable data on effects of paper use versus, say, water usage. (If you enter a public restroom in asia, for example, there will be a sprayer next to the toilet similar to the one on a kitchen sink. I never did get it down to where I didn't end up soaking myself and never got the nerve to ask a friend to demonstrate the art. Kind of like the shells in Demolition Man. I finally resorted to either disrobing firs or carrying my own TP. Probably more info than needed or wanted. I guess I'm saying= try it before you advocate it:-).
Getting good comparisons on actual conservation can be a challenge. For example, try finding out if it would be more resource efficient to use water to wash or toilet paper to wipe- or the energy used to create fuel cells versus the energy saved in their usage in automobiles. Let me know what you find out- I've been trying to get that last answer for a while now. Water is a renewable resource so it's use isn't necessarily a bad trade. Again, depends on what you're having to do to get the water to the sprayer. Reducing usage is almost always a good idea.
I'm thinking this post had something to do with Rove initially, but I'm not sure.....
FWIW-BB
I am very uninformed when it comes to discussing global warming and its causes. I haven't had a science course since high school, so I rely on my science-geek friends to help me out. Even if there was absolute proof that global warming was a sham, I'd still think that conservation was a good idea.
I will listen to anyone's point of view, as long as they can speak about it rationally and intelligently. I think Bono has some good things to say about African debt relief and I think he is effective. It also helps that I like U2.
BB, you just had to bring up the ...brown, let it down. You do raise a good point. There was someone that posted on Sheryl's blog that suggested that the energy consumption required to wash cloth knapkins had a greater impact than using tp or paper knapkins when you clean up. I don't know if they were right, but it is a good question.
The tour bus thing may have been petty, but at what point can she be called a hypocrite?
Steve, that feels like a trap--as long as she is a touring star, she is a hypocrite--even if she does some things to improve her carbon footprint?
But even if I acknowledge her own hypocrisy (as I must acknowledge my own) I hope you will respond to the contrast between whatever ridiculousness of a minor celebrity and the overpowering ridiculousness of the administration in power? Because at the end of the day, it feels like a waste of discussion to chastise crow but not bemoan the horrible policy of this administration on virtually every policy front.
Cloth napkins--let's not go there. Or about hotel linens, either. I think we can go on and on about this one, but Streak, I see your point, and I don't disagree.
But Steve beat me to the question I was planning on asking next; where do we draw the line at hypocrisy?
Bill Maher drives a Prius hybrid but doesn't put up much of a fuss tooling to the next engagement in an Excursion limo.
I think this boils down to rabid consumption on every strata and how difficult it is in our toilet paper society, as BB so eloquently put it, to exercise integrity in every area. There are gonna be times when we cannot help but cross that line.
I will digress about Crow. But if you really want ridiculous, check out this vapid, innocuous piece from our favorite preacher. In that same sermon he said global warming is a "tool of Satan."
???
I think what we need rather is a balance.
Ok. Tony and Steve, I don't disagree, but no one will acknowledge the hipocrisy and horribly destructive policies of this administration on every scientific front.
Once more--marginal star pontificates on toilet paper--everyone laughs, scoffs and freaks out. Administration enacts public policy based on worse science that actually kills people around the globe--silence.
This seems like a priority issue and I don't understand why I am being asked to confess to Crow's hypocrisy when the administration still gets slack, and other stars who do nothing get off scot-free (though I know both Tony and Steve have been critical of Bush). I love Bono and U2, but are we sure that they are living completely green lives? Their global tours are certainly consuming lots of carbon--by your approach, wouldn't we have to dismiss Bono too?
Come on, celebrities who drive the stretch hummers on a daily basis and live in houses featured on MTV are ignored, but those that at least try and do something on the environment become jokes. Maybe everyone on this blog will need to explain that one to me. Those who simply don't care appear to get off better than those who do and fall short.
Tony, you might be treading close to the line. In the last post, you linked to yet another Dougey article about arming every Christian and now you link to a Falwell sermon? :)
And Oscar Schindler let some Jews die, too.
I think that the reality is that if you are an advocate of a policy, behavior, lifestyle, etc... you are going to be scrutinized, especially if you are admonishing others for not taking the same path. The ones that drive stretch hummers are ignored because they don't voice any expectation of anyone else to do any less.
Sorry if I came off joking about Crow, but it was toilet paper for crying out loud:-)! I think that sometimes stars come across as questionable when they are seen as elites who can afford to go green when it's actually pretty difficult for the average person, especially the poor. Have you priced solar panels lately? I'm convinced the oil companies must own the patents. Anyway, I'm all for celebrities being political and living their convictions. In my opinion we have too little of that today rather than too much. The point sometimes is to do what you can where you are.
To run this tangient further, though, I'd like to mention a fun read. Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" is a good page turner that addresses some of these consistency questions and the politicalization of science. There's lots of money, power, influence, science, and ignorance on all sides of this one.
Later
BB
Pontificates on toilet paper? How do you come up with this stuff? :)
Again, I am not disagreeing, and I do understand the point. At least Maher and Crow try to be consistent. And I think that is the best we can do is try and live as good stewards of the environment, even if we cannot be perfect all the time, as ubub pointed out.
BB has a point, too, worth looking at; it is terribly expensive to be green. I mean, a Prius hybrid runs about seven grand more than a Corolla.
Keep it up, and I'll start linking to Pat Robertson and James Dobson, too. :)
Wow, I'll bet you never expected a discussion on TP and Sheryl Crow to last this long?
To answer Streak's question, I can't think of an area where gov't wouldn't have a greater impact than an entertainer. I am not arguing that Crow is more ridiculous than the Bush administration, nor would I even know quite how to do that.
LIke I said, I don't expect stars to live in caves and grow their own cereal, nor do I expect them to ride bikes to the Grammy Awards. If they want to push an environmental platform, then they should be willing to do what they are telling other people to do. How much, I suppose, is up to them. As for how much is enough, it is hard to say. Someone mentioned balance, and I think that is a fair way of looking at it.
When a celebrity (or any public figure) says "do this," I tend to be skeptical. There is a long history of various poeple, including televangelists, rock stars, politicians, and business leaders that have be caught doing what they said should not be done. I also wonder if it is a publicity stunt. Being green is hardly a controversial position among entertainers.
That being said, after some time, the skepticism may go away. Bono has put a lot of time and effort into debt relief, so he seems to be sincere. Paul Newman has done extensive charity work since the 1980's. I could go on. Sheryl may be one of these sincere people and I am willing to give her a chance if she'll give up this TP thing.
Tony, if you link to Dobson and Robertson, I'll start digging up Charelton Heston's writings.
Ok. Just to be fair, this is how I see how this comment thread evolved: I posted a link to a story where Newt blames liberals for the VaTech shooting spree and another one where Karl Rove was visibly angered at Sheryl Crow over global warming.
The next thing I know, Sheryl Crow's views on tp are in the mix and have been used to discredit anything she says. So her valid comments on global warming are now lost and all we are talking about is toilet paper. Karl Rove still defends an administraiton stance on global warming that can be summed up as "nothing." In addition, someone talked about as a possible Presidential contender just blamed people like me for the VaTech shooting. But it is Sheryl Crow who is ridiculous.
That about it?
You forgot Poland.
...and the wisdom of Wilford Brimley.
Streak- I don't necessarily agree with your summary but I'm frequently wrong. I will say that calling Rove "a bit of a dick" was probably considered a given by me and probably others. I don't think Crow is rediculous, but trying corner Rove in a public place, get him to comment on global warming, and getting a cold response is just expected at this point. An intelligent, engaging conversation would have been the surprise. I guess my sense of low expectations for anyone associated with this administration results in my seeing much of this as just affirmation of my assumptions. I don't think Crow's stance on global warming is rediculous, but her blog on the toilet paper was humorus. I'm with you, Streak, but I can't say I have much energy for outrage at Rove anymore. It's just more of a given. That doesn't minimize how I think this administration has screwed the pooch in just about any way I can think of. I guess one lesson with this crowd is, not unlike my ten year old, if you want to make a serious point make sure there's nothing involving, or sounding anywhere close to, bodily functions or the supplies associated therewith.
I do think that several good topics came up in the discussion- (I have to admit I looked right over the Gingrich link and will revisit that) anyway- celebrity involvement and legitimacy of their leadership in environmental issues, effects of poverty on ability to go green, this administration's closed mindedness on environmental issues, not least of which global warming, and several others. FWIW
Later Streak- BB
BB, not sure where you disagree with my summary. :)
Anyway, I will be glad to let this one go. Actually an interesting discussion and I apologize for being rather testy yesterday.
Streak,
Well, I never said Crow was ridiculous; I said her argument could be framed a bit more cogently.
I never really disagreed with you on this one; Crow is more credible than Rove at this point in time.
And to be fair, I never commented on the link about Newt. There was no reason to because to no one was to blame for the VA Tech shootings save one man and he is dead.
Newt just proves that men like him have to have something/someone to point a finger at.
ubub,
Forgive my ignorance, but Poland? I don't get it.
All in all, though, Streak, this was a fun thread.
Yeah, I know.
I think I reacted because during the 2004 race, things were just simply upside down. Kerry was portrayed as hypocritical on wealth, but Bush came from the same kind of money. Kerry became an anti-war hippie while Bush became a war hero?
I just am tired of the people in power getting away with this kind of crap. Bernie Goldberg published a book on the most dangerous people in America and very few of them really had power. Instead, he focussed on Barbra Streisand and Michael Moore. But Bush and Cheney (to my knowledge) escaped.
Anyway, on to other subjects. thanks for the spirited debate
Ah, Poland. In the 2004 campaign, Kerry chastised Bush during one of the debates for failing to develop a true international coalition before invading Iraq. Kerry noted that it was just Britain, Australia, and the US. Bush retorted, "You forgot Poland."
I have to admit, I forgot the Poland comment, so don't feel bad, Tony.
Post a Comment