Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Author! Author!
See other Author! Author! Articles

Title: Jim Cameron eager to mix it up with 'Avatar's' right-wing critics
Source: latimesblogs.latimes.com
URL Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the ... p-with-right-wing-critics.html
Published: Feb 13, 2010
Author: Patrick Goldstein on the collision of en
Post Date: 2010-02-13 00:44:24 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 843
Comments: 41

You can always tell that the Academy has sent out its final Oscar ballots by the sudden reappearance of gaudy full-page Oscar ads in the trades, my paper and the New York Times. It also means that most nominees, fearful of making a horrible gaffe, are especially careful not to say anything that could possibly be viewed as controversial in their interviews with the showbiz press.

Except, of course, for Jim Cameron.

He's on the cover of this week's The Envelope and he's clearly eager to mix it up with the multitudes of conservatives who've been trashing "Avatar," claiming that it's dumb, sanctimonious, anti-military, nuttily pro-environment and, as Big Hollywood's John Nolte memorably put it, a "Death Wish'' for leftists. Cameron isn't the sort of guy to take those brickbats lying down, even if means alienating a few Oscar voters, either because they agree with the conservative take on the film or prefer to vote for films that are free of any political leanings.

As he told Glenn Whipp: "Let me put it this way. I'm happy to piss those guys off. I don't agree with their worldview." As for his detractors' contempt for his environmental consciousness, dramatized in the film by the callous destruction of the Na'vi's pastoral world, Cameron says that the film's environmental message is a lesson for all moviegoers to digest. He explains that our planet "will be a dying world if we don't make some fundamental changes about how we view ourselves and how we view wealth .... We're going to have to live with less."

Cameron admits that many people will wonder what a fabulously wealthy filmmaker ensconced in a Malibu mansion knows about living with less, but he says that "I think there's a way to live and raise your kids with a set of values that teaches them the importance of hard work, the importance of respecting other people and the importance of respecting nature."

Cameron says he did have second thoughts about using an explicit "shock and awe" Iraq war reference in the film, but he insists that it reflects a bigger point he was trying to make. "What I really was saying was, 'Listen to what your leaders are saying. Open your eyes. And understand what the run-up to war is like, so the next time it happens, you can question it."

People have debated for years whether message-oriented films actually have an effect on filmgoers' consciousness. Seeing a movie is such an internalized, diffuse experience that it's hard to know how much of an influence it leaves behind. But I would say this: You could not have spent 150 minutes immersed in the world of "Avatar" without coming away with a new respect for how much we should treasure the natural resources of our world -- or any other.


Poster Comment:

I am in complete awe of this film. It is a movie that will revolutionaize the industry and bring people back to the theater.

More importantly this fim maker is spot on with his message on culture, the need for more focus on the environment, and I completely resonate with it.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle lives, and the Na'vi and Pandora have captured my imagination and heart. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

Zoe Saldana who played Neytiri by far was my favorite character. She is the most enchanting actress I have watched in a long time. She is a great performer and an incredibly beautiful woman.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   0:55:08 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: All (#0)

Palestinians Dress Up as Na'vi From 'Avatar' For Protest

by Blaine Metzgar | February 12, 2010 at 06:12 pm

Palestinian protesters painted themselves blue and dress up as Na'vi from Avatar in protest of the Israel's separation barrier near the village of Billin. Protest demonstrators painted themselves blue, donned long hair and slipped into loincloths in accord with the look of the Na'vi from James Cameron's Avatar.

Israel insists the barrier is necessary for the nation's security while Palestinians consider it a scheme to steal land.

Palestinian protesters parallel their endeavour to that of the Na'vi fighting for their land and culture drawing similarities to the plot of the #1 grossing film of all time as altercations with Israeli security forces often involve stones and tear gas.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/palestinians-dress-navi-avatar-protest-2575272.html

This movie is sure to not only influence the art of film making. As you see, it has influenced how people look at themselves and others around them.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   1:02:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: All (#0)

Indian Tribe's Supporters Liken Battle to 'Avatar' Juliette Terzieff | Bio | 10 Feb 2010

Human rights activists are turning up the heat on British company Vedanta Resources over charges that its operations threaten the existence of India's Dongria Kondh tribe. Cast as a "David versus Goliath" fight by the tribe and its supporters, the Vedanta story comes at a time when stakeholders continue to look for a firm definition and application of a community engagement concept known as Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC), to benefit indigenous peoples around the world.

Survival International has appealed to the makers of the blockbuster movie "Avatar" to help the Dongria Kondh fight off mining plans and the pollution resulting from Vedanta's operations in Orissa state. Vedanta and its subsidiaries already have government approval to expand current aluminum refinery operations and move forward with plans to mine the Niyamgiri Hills for bauxite.

The Dongria Kondh hold the Niyamgiri Hills sacred, and view themselves as protectors.

"The fundamental story of 'Avatar' -- if you take away the multi-colored lemurs, the long-trunked horses and warring androids -- is being played out today in the hills of Niyamgiri in Orissa, India. . . . The [Vedanta Resources] mine will destroy the forests on which the Dongria Kondh depend and wreck the lives of thousands of other Kondh tribal people living in the area," the group's director Stephen Corry said in a public appeal to "Avatar" creator, James Cameron.

Amnesty International also released a recent report on the Dongria Kondh case (.pdf), blasting the government for a failure to provide area residents with enough or accurate information about Vedanta's operations.

"People are living in the shadow of a massive refinery, breathing polluted air and afraid to drink from and bathe in a river that is one of the main sources of water in the region. It is shocking how those who are most affected by the project have been provided with the least information," AI's South Asia researcher Ramesh Gopalakrishan said in a press release.

For years, indigenous rights and human rights activists as well as socially responsible investment entities have been working on developing a framework for obtaining a local community's informed consent to development and private sector projects, with mixed success.

Many within the business community have questioned FPIC implementation over concerns that it is too broad and without any measurable guidelines. The role of government in protecting a country's inhabitants is also an implementation concern.

Many expect the efforts of the U.N.'s special representative on business and human rights, John Ruggie, to clarify the roles and expectations of the various players involved in protecting indigenous communities' rights. Ruggie is building his case for action based on a three-pillar framework: Respect, Protect and Remedy.

But Ruggie's presentation of concrete guidelines isn't due until 2011, which could be too late for the Dongria Kondh.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/show/5104

Not to mention there is a real life, here on Earth fight pitting indigenous people against a mining corporation out to destroy their land, way of life and just as evil and ruthless as the fictional entity mining on Pandora.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   1:09:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Ferret Mike (#0)

He explains that our planet "will be a dying world if we don't make some fundamental changes about how we view ourselves and how we view wealth .... We're going to have to live with less."

Who's "we?"

It's difficult to decide who is worse, pompous Hollywood types or pompous Washington types.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   8:20:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Mister Clean (#4)

Yeh - it really pisses me off that some Hollywood character would have the nerve to show a military force in anything but a glowing light.

Those blue monkeys brought it on themselves. I mean, jeez, the militants even gassed them to give them a chance to leave their homes before they made the military bomb their homes.

I'm with you on this one MC. That jerk Cameron outta be water bordered for his hateful views on the US and its military.

"Satan / Cheney in "08" Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

tom007  posted on  2010-02-13   9:17:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: tom007 (#5)

Yeh - it really pisses me off that some Hollywood character would have the nerve to show a military force in anything but a glowing light.

I apologize for causing you to have knee jerk reaction but I wasn't referring to his views on the Iraq war. I was simply pointing to his pompous statements about how "we" are going to have to learn to live with less.

Do you really think any rich person, be they from Hollywood or D.C., is going to live with less?

If you choose to respond, please respond to what I actually wrote, okay?

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   9:36:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Mister Clean (#6)

i spose one of the main reasons you're so hostile to this film is that it demonstrates how images, even moving images, can be manipulated.

so we have to wonder about the authenticity of any video ---for instance, the bin laden "confession tape"--- dont we?

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   10:29:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: groundresonance (#7)

i spose one of the main reasons you're so hostile to this film

Where did I say anything about the film?

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   10:34:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Mister Clean (#8)

ah.

i guess one of the reasons you're so hostile to cameron is that he's demonstrated how images, even moving images, can be manipulated.

so we have to wonder about the authenticity of any video ---for instance, the bin laden "confession tape"--- dont we?

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   10:35:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: groundresonance (#9)

i guess one of the reasons you're so hostile to cameron is that he's demonstrated how images, even moving images, can be manipulated.

Where did I say anything about moving images?

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   10:37:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Ferret Mike (#0)

Cameron admits that many people will wonder what a fabulously wealthy filmmaker ensconced in a Malibu mansion knows about living with less

Yeah, I wondered that just as soon as I saw that bs about how (other) people would have to live with less. Not like he's going to. Just another Hollyweird hypocrite.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-02-13   10:45:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Mister Clean (#10)

so, just to clarify my point, you are hostile to cameron and his movie because it has conclusively demonstrated that it can create a digital reality that is indistinguishable from film of real reality.

so when you trot out your videotape "evidence" of bin laden's "confession", you're kinda sucking wind.

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   10:46:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: groundresonance (#12)

so, just to clarify my point, you are hostile to cameron and his movie because it has conclusively demonstrated that it can create a digital reality that is indistinguishable from film of real reality.

You need to read what I said.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   10:48:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Mister Clean (#13) (Edited)

i dont need to read you very carefully.

the fact remains: cameron has proved that video evidence is no evidence, especially when it's used as evidence by neocons to justify their wars....

...and that's what scares you about this film.

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   10:55:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: groundresonance (#14)

i dont need to read you very carefully.

Obviously you do need to read my actual words since none of your comments had anything to do with what I said.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   11:04:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Mister Clean (#15)

the things you say are really not relevent to your main point...

the object of your posting, here, is to badmouth a demonstration of this fact: video is no longer evidence.

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   11:20:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: groundresonance (#16)

the things you say are really not relevent to your main point...

So I say one thing but I actually am saying something totally different? I see that you're in your own little world of make believe. Enjoy yourself!

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   11:24:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Mister Clean (#17)

nope.

i'm just driving home the point that cameron has proven that videotape is proof of nothing.

how does that apply to the neocon theory that they're "an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality"?

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   11:27:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Mister Clean (#17) (Edited)

...and underlying everything is cameron's attitude about resources and nature...

and that's really dangerous to you, because peak oil was the most immediate motive for the neocons to stage 9/11...

too bad the operation has degenerated so bad, but then, on the other hand, the really big dogs knew it was a lamebrained scheme from the start, and the only reason they're going along with it is that it provides an opportunity to do the biggest loot job ever, as america expires from dependence on cheap oil that, all of a sudden, costs five times what it did before oil production peaked.

and the poor israelis... they have to grab lots more high ground before global warming sets in hard and floods out 70% of the israeli population, dont they..? ...which accounts for israel giving up on gaza, but continuing their land grab in the high ground of the west bank...

hopefully this "war on terror" horseshit will provide enough distraction so the israelis can complete their ethnic cleasing of that high ground in the west bank...

...but it's got to be done before israel's protector, america, collapses from oil shortages and looters.

interesting, isnt it?

but you cant have people worrying about resource wars or the environment, main themes in "avatar", because oil shortages and abuse of the environment are connected directly to israel's survival, and were the reasons for israel's participation in the 9/11 operation...

...assuming for the sake of argument that the whole dismal PNAC idea didnt originate in israel.

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   11:40:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: tom007 (#5)

ROTFLOL! Here here, how can this film maker hate 'Merica so? Or hurt Zionist needs to keep their 'blue monkeys under their thumb.... errr, I mean control; control and order preserved.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   13:03:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Mister Clean (#6)

"Do you really think any rich person, be they from Hollywood or D.C., is going to live with less?"

Yes. There needs to be recognition that the most foundational budget to recognize is the carrying load of this planet for human numbers and individual human needs.

I would also say that material things are hardly the most important possessions of people. Enhancing intelligence and wisdom are far more important then the practice of compounding ignorant and the ability to be hateful and inhumane toward others.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   13:09:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: James Deffenbach (#11)

"Yeah, I wondered that just as soon as I saw that bs about how (other) people would have to live with less. Not like he's going to. Just another Hollyweird hypocrite."

Samuel Clements whose pen name of course was Mark Twain mused often on the paradox of the ideals and values expressed in his writings and how it did not match his deep and obsessive love of extravagance and love of luxury.

I would say that if Mr. Cameron wants to 'mix it up' with critics as is obvious, take the man to task.

I personally budget until it hurts so can donate every dollar I can to save Dolphins and Whales. I am also studying Japanese as I want to go over there and get in Dolphin killer face and do some activism there.

I love his sentiments and work, but I very much agree very deeply he needs to put his money where his mouth is in regards to his lifestyle.

It is a valid criticism.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   13:16:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Mister Clean (#4)

Well, as seamlessly as both worlds intertwine with players crossing the line from D.C. to L.A. like two country clubs with a reciprocal use agreement, I would be scared to touch that one, for sure. ;-D


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   13:22:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Ferret Mike (#21)

Yes. There needs to be recognition that the most foundational budget to recognize is the carrying load of this planet for human numbers and individual human needs.

Sounds like something out of that discredited book "The Population Bomb" by that discredited author Paul Ehrlich.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   16:48:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Mister Clean (#24)

Fact: species are going extinct at an increasing rate. Fact: the human population has grown huge and the growth of population has not stopped. Fact: this cannot continue forever. If we do not stop population growth, mother nature, war, and other factors will do it for us in a disastrous fashion.

I did not read that book. I do know it is not a new one and more recent works no doubt cover the bases it did better.

You can live with the wool over your eyes; in fact the entire human race can. But we are walking blindfolded toward a steep cliff, and if we do not change our ways, we will go over it.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   17:20:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Mister Clean (#24)

--

What some Japanese deserve. We need to stop killng whales and dolphins.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   17:28:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Ferret Mike (#25)

If we do not stop population growth, mother nature, war, and other factors will do it for us in a disastrous fashion.

Better to have things happen naturally than to have a bunch of know it all, arrogant, paternalistic scum try to stop people from having children.  What do you propose, a one child policy for the world?  Never gonna happen! 

I did not read that book. I do know it is not a new one and more recent works no doubt cover the bases it did better.

The book and its author have been discredited.  All the doom and gloom he predicted in the book never came to pass.  

Anyone who believes in this crap about overpopulation should set an example by commiting suicide.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   17:32:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Mister Clean (#27)

That is irresponsible thinking. We are responsible for our actions, such as irresponsibly increasing our numbers unchecked. Nobody expects the solutions to make people happy, but if you ran a hotel by leaving the doors open and letting fights, fire, murders, theft, and shear lack of room determine the occupancy of the building people would gage you a fool of a business owner.

As far as discredited goes, you argue rate of growth. This is a weak position as the ecologically disastrous effect of too many humans who want to much in terms of material possessions is a fact. It is demonstrable and what is happening is measured and documented.

As far as growth goes, a slower walk to the cliff with the wool over the eyes might be slower, but the results are the same when the camel's back finally breaks when the last straw hits it.

Your argument is full of hole and irrational.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   17:45:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Ferret Mike (#28)

We are responsible for our actions, such as irresponsibly increasing our numbers unchecked.

You don't have the right to tell anyone not to have children.  It's the worst kind of arrogance to think you do.

As far as discredited goes, you argue rate of growth.

Look up the predictions made in "The Population Bomb" and see for yourself.  None of them have come true.   For example, the book predicted mass starvation in 70's and 80's.  It didn't happen.

Most doom and gloom predictions don't happen especially the ones about the future!


Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   17:52:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Mister Clean (#29) (Edited)

"You don't have the right to tell anyone not to have children. It's the worst kind of arrogance to think you do."

But let me guess; you would tell people who love each other they could not sleep together or get married unless they were each a different gender. Then you would laugh and point at them citing how miserable they are, how much their misery effects their health and stress levels and say that that is the cause and effect making homosexuality bad; not the oppression you do to harass and disrupt their existence.

This is called hypocrisy, and you have it in bucket loads.

Nobody should have the right to tell someone they can't sleep unless they have a place to go and do it; but here in Eugene, Oregon and other places it is illegal to sleep in public. Public being anyplace not owned or rented by the individual(s) sleeping.

Humans have all kinds of measures of control to try to make things livable or orderly, and I hear conservatives on FR say welfare Mamas should be spayed all the time.

How do you feel about a woman having kids to increase her check from human services? I mean, you just said to control this is unconscionable.

We have to control population somehow, and it isn't as impossible as you would have us believe. Anyone who takes Sociology 101 learns quickly that developed nations have a low of even negative birthrate, and that less developed countries have population growth that is sky high.

I submit that a careful study of the entire spectrum of human population growth looking at all subsets of human groups would show this is a doable goal, with far less oppression or negative consequences then you would have us believe.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   18:06:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Ferret Mike (#30)

But let me guess; you would tell people who love each other they could not sleep together or get married unless they were each a different gender.

I don't care about gay marriage.

How do you feel about a woman having kids to increase her check from human services.

She only does that because she knows she'll get more money.  Cut off the money or place limits on what is available and for how long and these people will likely stop having children just for the welfare check. 

I submit that a careful study of the entire spectrum of human population growth looking at all subsets of human groups would show this is a doable goal, with far less oppression or negative consequences then you would have us believe.

I submit you believe in pipe dreams. 

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   18:12:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Mister Clean (#31)

"She only does that because she knows she'll get more money. Cut off the money or place limits on what is available and for how long and these people will likely stop having children just for the welfare check."

Many just are into having kids, and kids are not permitted by government to starve and have no support. Do you support starving kids if women have them anyway? And this is exactly what always happens regardless of benefits paid.

It sounds like you are saying, "Screw it, if the kids starve, that'll learn them not to whelp them rats."

And just who is dealing with fantasy? I submit it is you.

You don't even believe in studying the problem of population growth or doing anything about it.

I thought you were conservative, and cared about personal responsibility? If people as individuals or groups do not react and work to end the cancerous and disastrous growth of our numbers, this lack of personal responsibility leads to the cliff blindly walked off of.

And the fall consisting of war, famine, disease, starvation, chaos and social entropy is the route one would expect the fate to be of creatures that do not think, reason, care about one another, build things, and are creative and inventive. Are you saying we are just so many lemmings who inevitably will march to drown in the sea?

It is you here who lives in denial, quite obviously.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   18:32:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Ferret Mike (#32)

Many just are into having kids, and kids are not permitted by government to starve and have no support. Do you support starving kids if women have them anyway? And this is exactly what always happens regardless of benefits paid.

I support people being responsible for their actions.  There is a price to be paid for doing foolish things and people will suffer from foolish behavior.  The larger society is not responsible for taking care of the children of irresponsible people.

You don't even believe in studying the problem of population growth or doing anything about it.

I don't believe in predictions of doom, gloom, diaster and destruction.  If you want to fret over population growth go right ahead.  

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   18:39:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Mister Clean (#33) (Edited)

I don't believe in predictions of doom, gloom, diaster and destruction.

do you believe in the fact that global crude oil production peaked, year-on- year, in 2005?

would you like to hazard a guess as to the sustainable human population once oil and natural gas are no longer plentiful enough to run the tractors and the trucks, or make, transport and spread the fertilizer?

would you like to explain why population growth curves are so congruent with fossil fuel use curves?

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   18:45:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: groundresonance (#34)

do you believe in the fact that global crude oil production peaked, year-on- year, in 2005?

Nope.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   18:47:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Mister Clean (#35)

too bad there are a couple agencies that keep track of global oil production, and according to them, global oil production peaked, year-on-year, in 2005.

but now we're getting down to the nitty gritty of the motive behind your performance here, arent we?

you have to discredit peak oil because peak oil was the immediate motive the neocons had to stage 9/11 to kick start their oil acquisition project.

they apparently were hoping that peak oil could be delayed long enough so people would not connect the dots between 9/11 and peak oil...

...a situation that the neocons anticipated, as they blew up a housing bubble, with the help of greenspan, which could be popped to crash the global economy, which would crash demand for oil, which would obscure peak oil, which would obliterate one of the dots that will be connected to the 9/11 dot.

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   18:53:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: groundresonance (#36)

you have to discredit peak oil because peak oil was the immediate motive the neocons had to stage 9/11 to kick start their oil acquisition project.

Oh my gosh, how did you figure that out?

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   18:57:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Mister Clean (#33)

"I support people being responsible for their actions. There is a price to be paid for doing foolish things and people will suffer from foolish behavior. The larger society is not responsible for taking care of the children of irresponsible people."

And so children should suffer because their parents were irresponsible? If people are irresponsible in parenting kids, often they are not responsible when it comes to taking care of them. So as innocents should not suffer, government acts to keep those children from suffering and dying of exposure, disease or starvation.

Not to mention that if these children are not educated, then their ignorance as adults will cost more then the price of sending them to a school to learn.

So what are you saying? That people who are irresponsible about breeding should go to expensive to run prisons? Because the innocent children surely should not starve or suffer for actions happening creating them. So what reasonable solution do you have to population growth continuing unchecked? Just ignoring it is not going to make the problem go away.

I also don't live by predictions of doom, gloom, disaster and destruction. I base my belief system and opinions on quantifiable facts and known situations and the obviousness of how things will turn out or happen if better solutions then ignoring or neglecting problems such as unchecked population growth are not found.

You can go ahead and wear that blindfold and march stoically to your doom over that metaphorical cliff. But you are being foolish, myopic and live in denial in doing so.


Ric O’Barry -- Earth Island Institute

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   18:58:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: ferret mike, WEASEL MIKE (#38)

So what reasonable solution do you have to population growth continuing unchecked?

Your people have a 'solution' for it, that we know.

Why don't you depoppers start. Grab a butter knife and shove it as hard and deep as you can into your eye socket.

If that doesn't begin the depopulation process, try the other eye socket...


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2010-02-13   19:02:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Ferret Mike (#38)

And so children should suffer because their parents were irresponsible?

It happens all the time just about everywhere and you can't prevent it... not even through population control.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   19:02:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 41) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest