Search found 2 matches: Jet Li

Stewball wrote:

Suture Self wrote:If you compare these small and unfortunately brief "positives" to the overwhelming negative backlash and the subsequent political kerfuffle it spawned, it's hard to make the case the documentary was significant enough to be called a catalyst for positive change. Like I've already mentioned, it galvanized opposition against it and remains an incredibly divisive and contentious documentary. Its fatal flaw was making fucking AL GORE the face of global warming.

By George, I think you have a point. As has been pointed out, people initially reacted in congress with Gore's crisis stirring film. But then they started realizing the science was fucked (shrinking glaciers don't calve icebergs they recede; the polar bears are doing just fine thank you; his global warming scare was so weak it had to be changed to "climate change" in the face of a (continuing) lack of any warming at all; his personal lear-jet liberal habits and carbon credit schemes all sort of ganged up on the poor guy when they came crashing down on him in Copenhagen. I try to feel sorry for him but.....well.....rotfl.

If you want an example of a work that actually was a catalyst for positive change, look to something like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.

That was required reading for me in high school, and being young and ignorant, I believed it. That damn book, with the banning of DDT it engendered, has caused more human suffering and death from Malaria than all the NAZIs in history.

"The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that ‘in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable.’ The World Health Organization stated that DDT had ‘killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.’”--Forbes, 2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/05/rachel-carsons-deadly-fantasies/

BTW, FWIW, have you noticed the similarity between Rachel Carson and Dr. Surridge who experimented on humans in V for Vendetta, and that the roses V left as his calling card were Scarlet Carsons? I always go for the movie connections.

Bitch.

You should make that movie, Stewball. I think it's your calling.

I will just as soon as you come up with the $50 mil to make it. Sorry to see you're still not coming up with substantive responses, but of course that would mean you'd have to stir that cognitive soup between your ears--which is hard given the soup is little more than a thin fog. Need some salt?

Suture Self wrote:If you compare these small and unfortunately brief "positives" to the overwhelming negative backlash and the subsequent political kerfuffle it spawned, it's hard to make the case the documentary was significant enough to be called a catalyst for positive change. Like I've already mentioned, it galvanized opposition against it and remains an incredibly divisive and contentious documentary. Its fatal flaw was making fucking AL GORE the face of global warming.

If you want an example of a work that actually was a catalyst for positive change, look to something like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.

You should make that movie, Stewball. I think it's your calling.