• Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sajini W
    • Sid’s blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • 1820
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown






  • Technorati: graph / links

    Al Gore’s “shockumentary”


    by Sunny on 17th October, 2007 at 4:20 pm    

    A lorry driver recently bought a case to the High Court against Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, which resulted in the judge saying it contained some “errors”.

    This is an extract from an interview with the lorry driver on BBC Radio 4’s World Tonight:

    Stuart Dimmock (SD): It’s a political shockumentary, it’s not a scientific documentary.
    BBC presenter Robin Lustig (RL): But you’re not a scientist yourself, are you?
    SD: No.
    RL: Some people might wonder why you felt so strongly about this that you were prepared to take it all the way to the High Court, whether you have an agenda of some kind – do you?
    SD: I have two young children. In my mind it’s wrong that we push politics into the classroom.
    RL: Could I ask you one other question, Mr Dimmock? It’s not cheap taking a case to the High Court [The case cost £200,000].
    SD: No, it’s not.
    RL: Were you helped financially to do this?
    SD: The government have been ordered to pay my costs. [Unclear] £60,000 upfront payment.
    RL: But you didn’t know that that was going to be the order until today, did you?
    SD: No, I didn’t.
    RL: Who took the risk?
    SD: [Long, five-second pause]. Mmmm, I’ve had pledges of support.
    RL: May I ask you from whom?
    SD: You can ask from whom but I’m sorry I can’t tell you because I haven’t got the names of the people that have pledged their support. It’s through a website.

    The whole item can be heard here.
    So… who was funding and supporting him I wonder.
    Update: I’ve been emailed by Mr Eugenides pointing to this Observer article revealing who funded this lorry driver. Nothing to see here, move along!

    Further update: Thanks to Douglas in the comments, Deltoid points out that the “errors” contained in the doc were not exactly errors, but disputes which were labelled as “errors” by the judge. Most journalists of course didn’t bother reading the whole ruling properly.



      |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Environmentalism




    57 Comments below   |  

    1. douglas clark — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:37 pm  

      Deltoid think is was Christopher Monkton, see here:

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/monckton_was_behind_dimmocks_l.php

    2. Random Guy — on 17th October, 2007 at 4:39 pm  

      compare:-

      HEADLINE #1: JUDGE ORDERS AL-GORE MOVIE TO BE CLARIFIED IN HIGH SCHOOLS ACCORDING TO NINE ERRORS, FOLLOWING TRUCK DRIVER’S SUCCESFUL PROSECUTION BID

      to

      HEADLINE #2: JUDGE ORDERS AL-GORE MOVIE TO BE CLARIFIED IN HIGH SCHOOLS ACCORDING TO NINE ERRORS, FOLLOWING TRUCK DRIVER’S SUCCESFUL PROSECUTION BID - LARGELY FUNDED BY UNKNOWN INTEREST GROUP

      Spin and Win, the BBC just doesn’t let you down these days.

    3. ChrisC — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:07 pm  

      I would have pledged a grand had I known about it!

    4. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:18 pm  

      Mobil-Exxon
      Total
      Shell
      ESSO

    5. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:26 pm  

      So a judge rules that Al Gore was making stuff up and the the general reaction is not ‘what a cheating liar’ but ‘who brought the case in the first place?’. This reaction says more about Gore’s supporters than anything else ever will.

    6. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:36 pm  

      Yeah because the judge’s decision really, really convinces me that human action has NO part in global warming.

      And the fact that agreeing with the body of scientific evidence makes one a “Gore Supporter” says more about Gore’s detractors than anything else ever will.

    7. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 5:52 pm  

      Sid:

      I was not saying that Gore was wrong about everything, merely that he lied repeatedly in his film. Is this behaviour okay, because in your eyes the end justifies the means? Is it okay for all of us to lie if we are doing it for a cause that we believe in?

    8. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 6:00 pm  

      worked with the Iraq war…

    9. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 6:04 pm  

      Saudi Arabian Oil Company
      National Iranian Oil Company
      Qatar Petroleum
      Abu Dhabi National Oil Company

    10. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 6:04 pm  

      Sid:

      So in your mind Gore is on a par with Bush and Blair? Good- thanks for clearing that up.

    11. Roger — on 17th October, 2007 at 6:11 pm  

      How do you know Gore was lying and not mistaken, Rumbold? That’s leaving aside the fact that this is a matter of interpretation of the evidence. Gore is said to have drawn conclusions that were not absolutely supported by the evidence he provided for them. That is a rather different thing to deliberately telling lies.

    12. Bishop Hill — on 17th October, 2007 at 7:37 pm  

      The answer to Roger’s question in 11 is that the defence were unable to muster any evidence at all to support several of the allegations. (eg the polar bears)

    13. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:09 pm  

      Roger:

      Gore must have known that some of the material was unsupported. Therefore, he lied by presenting it as fact, unless he can prove that he was pig ignorant about the whole subject. Good to see that the Nobel committee are as political as ever.

    14. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:10 pm  

      You prospectively supported the Iraq War even after no WMDs were found, in spite of the evidence that was submitted to the UN before the invaison. Do you regard yourself to be in a strong position to question the ethics of the interpretation of evidence showed by Al Gore?

    15. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:12 pm  

      Saudi Aramco
      Kuwait Petroleum Corp
      Sonatrach of Algeria
      Abu Dhabi National Oil Co

    16. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:15 pm  

      Sid:

      “You prospectively supported the Iraq War even after no WMDs were found, in spite of the evidence that was submitted to the UN before the invaison. Do you regard yourself to be in a strong position to question the ethics of the interpretation of evidence showed by Al Gore?”

      I never supported the Iraq war based on the WMD question- for me it was always about liberal interventionism. Though I agreed with the outcome (i.e. the invasion), I never supported Bush and Blair’s attitude towards the supposed WMDs. With regards Gore, I am not saying that everybody should stop believing that mankind has an impact on the climate, rather admit that what he did was wrong, just as Bush, Blair and Brown lying was wrong.

    17. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:20 pm  

      Rumbold

      regarding WMDs, how convenient for you :-)

      Hwoever, you’ve basically answered your own question #7 in the affirmative. If it’s ok for you, is it ok for Gore?

    18. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:23 pm  

      Sid:

      “If it’s ok for you, is it ok for Gore?”

      I am not saying that Bush and Blair lying was right. Similarly, Gore’s deception does not invalidate all of his arguments, but it does not make his behaviour right either.

    19. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:28 pm  

      Your question in #7 was:
      “Is it okay for all of us to lie if we are doing it for a cause that we believe in”

      You’ve just answered that to be yes, because your personal reasons for invasaion were “liberal intervention” although the war was prosecuted on the grounds of WMDs which turned out to be, erm, judgementally incorrect, shall we say. But you’ve absolved yourself of the ethical problem because your intentions were good.

    20. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:30 pm  

      Qatar Liquefied Gas Company Ltd.
      RasGas Companies
      Qatar Fuel Additives Company Ltd

    21. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:33 pm  

      Sid:

      I did not lie- Gore did. I did not really know anything about Iraq’s WMDs, and so I supported the war for my own reasons. Gore lying in order to enrich himslef is not the same as me supporting a cause even if I have different motives from the protagonsts. If you think what I believed is wrong because of lying by Bush and Blair, then can I have your condemnation of Gore? Thanks.

    22. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:37 pm  

      You did not lie in the case of Iraq, but you supported a lie even when you knew it to be manifestly untrue. What’s the difference?

      Gore is arguing for the saving of natural reserves and the lives of millions of people in the world who are on the frontline of environmental disaster. You supported a couple of politicians who ended up killing hundreds of thousands. Surely you can support a lie if it means saving millions? Thanks.

    23. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:40 pm  

      Chevron Corporation
      ConocoPhillips
      Crown Central Petroleum
      Devon Energy
      Emarat

    24. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:41 pm  

      Sid:

      “You did not lie in the case of Iraq, but you supported a lie even when you knew it to be manifestly untrue. What’s the difference?”

      Sorry, when have I ever said that Iraq had WMDs?

      “Gore is arguing for the saving of natural reserves and the lives of millions of people in the world who are on the frontline of environmental disaster. You supported a couple of politicians who ended up killing hundreds of thousands. Surely you can support a lie if it means saving millions? Thanks.”

      As Gore’s home emits 24 times the amount of carbon dioxide that an average American’s home does, perhaps he could help the planet by some personal economy. If Gore is lying about many things, then how can you say piously that he is trying to save millions of lives? How do we know that anything he says now has any truth in it at all?

    25. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:44 pm  

      So piety is ok if it means supporting the bombing of millions of civilians as long you cherish and hold dear to your heart, the idea that you believe its all about liberal intervention?

    26. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:46 pm  

      Kerr-McGee
      Koch Industries
      The Louisiana Land & Exploration Company
      Marathon Oil Corporation

    27. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:46 pm  

      Sid:

      Let me clarify my position. I supported the Iraq war in spite of Bush and Blair’s lies. I think it is perfectly fine for people to believe in man-made climate change in spite of Gore’s lies. Where is the contradiction in that?

    28. Rumbold — on 17th October, 2007 at 8:53 pm  

      Sid:

      I am off to watch Heroes now, so I yield the floor fully to you. As a consolation, I have prepared a highlights version of what our conversation would have been had I not departed:

      Rumbold: Gore is a liar. That is wrong.

      Sid: The Iraq war was a lie.

      Sid: Hounslow muncipal oil corporation
      North Watford petrol refinery
      Swansea drilling company

      Rumbold: Bush and Blair lied, but so did Gore.

      Sid: You supported the Iraq war. People died.

      Rumbold: Did Gore lie?

      Sid: Did Bush and Blair lie?

      etc.

    29. Sunny — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:17 pm  

      Rumbold, I think you’re missing his point. Namely that people accept lies or ‘untruths’ depending on whether it supports their existing viewpoint or not. No point denying it.

      So Gore exaggerated or made up a few things in his doc. Well, clearly the heavens have fallen down. And this is despite the fact that the judge accepted the doc was broadly correct. How does that sit with you?

      No one has yet stopped buying all the newspapers that lied through their teeth about the ‘45 minutes away from Nuclear Armageddon’ claim about Saddam’s WMD.

      If one wants to a more honest society, we should start with the big issues, no?

    30. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:18 pm  

      Rumbold

      Do you think you’ve personalised the problem a bit too much? I have the same problem. I almost always end up hating the cars that Jeremy Clarkson drives in Top Gear. Even if they happen to be beautifully made and designed. Even though I know Clarkson personally has had little to do with the design and build of the car, of the years of research that’s gone into it, even of the choice of road that he’s driving it on and even though I know he’s only sat in for an hour or so of filming. And yet the car’s appeal has been well and trully fucked over by contact with the c##t Clarkson.

      This is my problem, I know. Do you think the same applies to you of Al Gore?

    31. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:23 pm  

      Rumbold

      Heroes is ok, but Studio 60 on Sunset Boulevard is the best TV on at the moment. Channel 4 tonight, 11.45pm, 2 episodes in a row.

    32. douglas clark — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:31 pm  

      Well, comments 2 to 28 completely ignore what I said at comment 1. This is a Court case, allegedly funded partly by Christopher Monkton, climate change denialist extraordinnaire, and somewhat related to Nigella Lawson and her dad, Nigel Lawson. Who, if memory serves me correctly was a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whom 18 Doughty Street seem to think has a brain.

      This is a cabal you are looking at, with pennies, at least, at risk.

      What’s not to love about it? You have a mathematical cryptologist, a beautiful woman and and an ex Tory high heid yin.

      Frankly, Rumbold, the smoking gun points at the folk that brought this prosecution.

      Shower of incorrigible capitalist death dealers. Expect DK along any minute now.

    33. douglas clark — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:38 pm  

      Rumbold,

      I’m away to watch Heroes too. But you’ve got some explaining to do for yourself in the morning. Let me tell you young man!

    34. Bert Preast — on 17th October, 2007 at 9:55 pm  

      This melting Arctic ice cap stuff is frankly becoming a bit of a pisser. In Spain the last 6 weeks we’ve had literally a village or town flooded every day, and not your gentle, civilised English floods that knock on the door and ask to come in. Oh no, these buggers tend to pick your car up without so much as a by your leave and sweep it into the sea. That or the hailstones take all it’s windows out and leave 40 dents in it.

      It’s getting silly, to be honest. The weathermen say it’s the ‘gota frio’ but I can’t ever remember it being anything like this bad. When you take into account the floods in the Uk, the opening of the north west passage etc. it’s really quite worrying.

      So fair play Al Gore, but I suspect the horse has long since bolted. We had our chance 30 years back and did nothing, now we pay the piper. Short of us all going back to the iron age tomorrow, I think we’re in deep shit and it now doesn’t matter what we do. Bugger.

    35. douglas clark — on 17th October, 2007 at 10:52 pm  

      Oh, and thanks a bunch Sunny.

      Mr Eugenides directs you to one conspirator through e-mail and you didn’y bother looking at what Deltoid had to say? As in post 1, first bloody post on this thread?

      I am in a huff.

      There is a better analysis at Deltoid than Mr Eugenides is frankly capable of.

      Sorry, Mr Eugenides, we do agree on Iraq interpreters, but obviously not on the risk of extinction.

    36. Katy Newton — on 17th October, 2007 at 11:29 pm  

      Leaving aside the question of whether or not Gore lied or made mistakes in his film, would someone mind explaining why there’s a problem with someone asking that the errors in his film be rectified before it’s shown to schoolchildren?

      Or does the answer to this depend on my views on Iraq?

    37. sonia — on 17th October, 2007 at 11:35 pm  

      yep good point from bert preast. what with gloucestershire drowning this summer, and everything else going haywire with the weather..its pretty obvious what we gotta worry about.

    38. Sid — on 17th October, 2007 at 11:52 pm  

      No Katy, it depends on your answer to Bell-End’s Paradox:
      “Is it okay for us to lie if we are doing it for a cause that we believe in?”

      If you supported the Iraq war, you’ve already answered “YES!”

    39. Katy Newton — on 18th October, 2007 at 12:25 am  

      I didn’t support the Iraq war, Sid. On any basis. I hope that puts your mind at rest. Do you feel able to explain what the problem is with the scientific errors in Gore’s film being highlighted to children as they’re watching it is now, or have you got any other red herrings on you? :-)

    40. Katy Newton — on 18th October, 2007 at 12:48 am  

      Let me save you some trouble: there’s nothing wrong with it, is there? No sensible person could suggest that children shouldn’t be told of scientific errors in a film presented to them as a factual educational documentary.

      For what it’s worth, I doubt that Gore deliberately lied in the sense of deliberately setting out to deceive people. I think he genuinely believes that a crisis is looming and he stretched the truth because he wanted people to feel that they have to do something now, not in a few thousand years time. But I’ve read what the errors were and Gore’s done too much research not to have known that he was stretching the truth. How culpable you think that is is a matter for you, really.

      But I do wonder what the problem is with the fact that the guy was funded by an organisation. That happens all the time There’s nothing unusual about people pressing a political agenda by funding impecunious claimants in judicial review actions. You have to have “standing” to bring that kind of action, you see, as in have a tangible interest in the point being argued, which in this case would probably mean that you’d have to have a child at a school where the video was going to be shown. So if you were a millionaire with an anti-global-warming stance but you didn’t have a child at the school, you’d offer to fund someone who did. Here, the result was that the issue was properly litigated in a public forum and Gore was largely vindicated, but for these nine errors. And the way in which the action was funded was published on the party’s website, I understand; the fact that Sunny didn’t know that when he first published this article doesn’t mean it wasn’t in the public domain. I don’t understand what’s thought to be so sinister about this.

    41. Bert Preast — on 18th October, 2007 at 12:54 am  

      Nothing wrong with a claimant being funded by an organisation at all.

      Just when they do their damndest to hide their involvement and then get caught out - well. Not cricket, is it? What have THEY got to hide?

    42. ZinZin — on 18th October, 2007 at 1:39 am  

      Gore’s documentary contains some errors and the climate change deniers use this as a stick to beat him.

      “Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.”

      The Great Global Warming Swindle perhaps?

    43. Sunny — on 18th October, 2007 at 1:49 am  

      Katy - nothing wrong with people funding to support their agenda of course… as long as we know how is behind that funding for the public domain. In this case this lorry driver pretended it was just him against Al Gore and then tried his best to avoid declaring who was funding him. Hmm.. wonder why.

      I’ve not said anything against people funding what they support. But let’s have transparent links, right? After all its transparency that makes a great democracy. After that, people can judge who to believe basis on what sort of attitudes and ideas they like to promote.

    44. Rohin — on 18th October, 2007 at 2:00 am  

      I am not that fussed about this guy being backed. Katy says it happens a lot and that’s good enough for me, she’s the lawyer-type.

      I’m the science-type so my problem is the bickering about the errors themselves. I have dedicated my life to only adhering to facts with a sound evidence base.

      I think we’re agreed Gore wasn’t malicious in his erroneous assertions. He wanted his film to have greater impact and may have a) exaggerated b) failed to question nuggets written for him c) misunderstood the data.

      So what were the errors? I have taken a look at each of the 9 errors, which let’s bear in mind was part of a film containing over 100 separate facts.

      The sea level rise due to Greenland’s melting was exaggerated
      - it WILL rise, this was agreed by the judge, but not so soon.

      Pacific atolls are being flooded. The judge opposed this as no evacuations have taken place. They have not. But increasing encroachment of Pacific atoll shorelines has been documented. It hasn’t caused any evacuations, yet.

      The Gulf Stream will be shut down. This is thought to be unlikely BUT has been a belief held by much of the scientific community concerned with climate change. It’s like predicting a ‘flu pandemic or a tropical storm, certain outcomes are more probable than others.

      Two graphs charting the rise of CO2 levels and temperature fit together exactly. They don’t. But a connection between the two was conceded by the judge. The significance was exaggerated.

      Mt Kilimanjaro’s snowcap’s disappearance is due to human-made global warming. This is a silly assertion, there is no way a causal effect can be attributed. But I doubt anyone would disagree the cap’s retreated due to climate change. Likewise for Lake Chad’s drying up, Hurricane Katrina, Polar Bears drowning and coral bleaching/dying.

      These last examples (the remaining 5 errors) are attempts to put an understandable face on global warming. Remember that much of the damage has not been done, it is merely predicted. Hence the film sought to explain the effects. It is a flawed science but I still think it’s the best way to illustrate to the masses what might happen.

      Gore could’ve been more clear in saying some of these statements are theories. But otherwise, I don’t think you can fault the film too severely. Certainly not in comparison to Fahrenheit 9/11 or Sicko, which take far larger leaps of faith.

      Stats and science need to be explained clearly
      . I cannot quite understand why the vitriol against Gore. I don’t care if he lives in a big house, I don’t care if he pulls puppy’s tails. When did the film become about him? I think it’s an admirable film and I don’t give a monkey’s either way about the man himself. Michael Winner’s a complete shit but I like Deathwish.

    45. Katy Newton — on 18th October, 2007 at 7:45 am  

      I see that when someone doesn’t want to reveal their funding it can be cause for concern, definitely, but I think in this case I would be more concerned if the organisation itself hadn’t been open about it. My guess is the claimant got carried away with his own David and Goliath excitement and didn’t really want to admit that he’d actually never been subject to any litigation risk at all.

    46. Sofi — on 18th October, 2007 at 9:50 am  

      pity i missed this. however, i urge the editors to blog something on iraq just so i can really interrogate rumbold on his preposterous position on the war.

    47. Ravi Naik — on 18th October, 2007 at 12:02 pm  

      nothing wrong with people funding to support their agenda of course… as long as we know how is behind that funding for the public domain.

      So… do you feel the need to disclose who funds you to support your cause?

    48. Sunny — on 18th October, 2007 at 3:42 pm  

      So… do you feel the need to disclose who funds you to support your cause?

      The illuminati of course.

    49. Morgoth — on 18th October, 2007 at 3:46 pm  

      The illuminati of course.

      Makes a change from “Zionists”, I guess.

    50. sonia — on 18th October, 2007 at 4:04 pm  

      certainly makes sense to rectify errors once they have been brought to light!

    51. Rumbold — on 18th October, 2007 at 4:44 pm  

      Sunny:

      “So Gore exaggerated or made up a few things in his doc. Well, clearly the heavens have fallen down. And this is despite the fact that the judge accepted the doc was broadly correct. How does that sit with you?”

      The Government was planning to send this to schools as a factual programme. It was not, as there were a number of errors/lies in it? On that basis, do you want children learning from materials that have been proven to contain lies? Why is that okay?

      “I’ve not said anything against people funding what they support. But let’s have transparent links, right? After all its transparency that makes a great democracy. After that, people can judge who to believe basis on what sort of attitudes and ideas they like to promote.”

      Surely the funding matters a lot less than the judgement.

      Sid:

      “Do you think you’ve personalised the problem a bit too much? I have the same problem. “

      There might be some truth in that, as I do not like Gore (I like Clarkson though). However, I still believe that opposing an error-riddled documentary being presented as kosher in schools is the right thing to do.

      “Heroes is ok, but Studio 60 on Sunset Boulevard is the best TV on at the moment. Channel 4 tonight, 11.45pm, 2 episodes in a row.”

      Heroes is brilliant. I have not yet watched ‘Studio 60 on Sunset Boulevard’, but will endevour to do so, as it looks good. I wish they would bring ‘The Sweeney’ back.

      “No Katy, it depends on your answer to Bell-End’s Paradox.”

      Glad to see that you are as civil as ever.

      Douglas:

      “Frankly, Rumbold, the smoking gun points at the folk that brought this prosecution.”

      It does not matter whether it was the seven druids of Glarbath who funded the court case, the judge still ruled the way he did. Why is it that when groups like Greenpeace (whose survival depends on money) bring such cases, nobody criticises them, but whenever somebody remotely right-wing funds a case there must be something sinister going on? Shame about the Georgia match by the way.

      Katy:

      “Leaving aside the question of whether or not Gore lied or made mistakes in his film, would someone mind explaining why there’s a problem with someone asking that the errors in his film be rectified before it’s shown to schoolchildren?”

      Excellent point.

      Sofi:

      “Pity i missed this. however, i urge the editors to blog something on iraq just so i can really interrogate rumbold on his preposterous position on the war.”

      Interrogate away. It is interesting to read that a belief in liberal interventionism is preposterous. I did not realise that you believe that rulers can do anything to their populations as long as it is within their own borders.

    52. Sid — on 18th October, 2007 at 4:48 pm  

      sorry my typo, it’s called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, and it’s the dog’s boolians.

    53. Sofi — on 18th October, 2007 at 5:12 pm  

      >> I did not realise that you believe that rulers can do anything to their populations as long as it is within their own borders.

      i do believe youre making a massive presumption there given i havent actually elaborated on why i believe your stance is preposterous.

      anyway, liberal interventionism. could you please define that for me?

    54. Rumbold — on 18th October, 2007 at 5:46 pm  

      Sofi:

      “anyway, liberal interventionism. could you please define that for me?”

      Liberal interventionism- the belief that it is occasionally necessary to intervene in another country, because the behaviour of the ruling elite towards its people is beyond the pale.

      Now, can you tell me why my view on the Iraq was is prepostorous?

    55. Sofi — on 19th October, 2007 at 12:54 pm  

      >>Liberal interventionism- the belief that it is occasionally necessary to intervene in another country, because the behaviour of the ruling elite towards its people is beyond the pale.

      i take it occasionally isnt the operative word?? Would you class Afghanistan as a liberal intervention? What about discussions to bomb Iran? Hey hang on..is world domination a Liberal intervention?

      >>Now, can you tell me why my view on the Iraq was is prepostorous?

      Supporting a war that was and is responsible for killing and maiming and pychologically destroying the minds of thousands and thousands and thousands of people-in short, destroying a whole country and initiating a civil war, all based on a lie

    56. John Doe — on 6th November, 2007 at 6:44 pm  

      7377e6fe2422a052c663116b68c37949

    57. Weather Network — on 14th November, 2007 at 12:29 pm  

      Weather Network…

      I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.