Saturday, July 07, 2007
|
|
Live Earth A Bust
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
11:45 PM
|
|
People in attendance at the PGA Tour event today in the D.C. area: 37,613, per a local sports channel.
People in attendance at Al Gore's Live Earth event in D.C. today... Well, somewhat less than that. Guessing whether it was 100 times less, or merely 50 times less, that's just part of the fun.
Here's what look like empty seats at the marquee event in New York. And drastically fewer people showed up than anticipated in Rio. UPDATE: And, rather than attend a Live Earth house party, 140,000 in Florida showed up for an event that's not going carbon neutral anytime soon, no matter what Al Gore III tries to pull.
|
|
Global Warming is a hot air balloon with a leak right now. Even a few scientists are coming out against it. It is not a hot issue right now.
However, if a hurricane rips the Gulf and kicks gas prices up to $4 this summer it will be back on the front page.
|
|
to reduce any global warming is to have Algore close his pie hole. His hot air, and the carbon expenditures to move his fat arse around the globe to blather, are raising temperatures. In fact, it makes my blood boil.
Algore, go away. Go home, your family needs you. |
|
Seats behind the stage at stadium concerts are often left empty by the organizers. The St Al pic isn't really an indicator of disinterest.
I'm not defending what the Prophet of Gaia says and does, I just want to be fair. |
|
|
The "scientists" that are coming out against the theory don't deserve the title anymore. Most of their arguments could be debunked by an undergrad science major. |
|
|
This is a funny post! Do you hate political opponents so much that ANYTHING they do you oppose? Because obviously the failure (if it was a failure) of these concerts has no bearing on a) the truth or untruth of global warming or b) public perception of said truth. People did not stay home as some sort of anti-warming protest -- they stayed home because these concerts were hastily put together and poorly planned. Oh, and the lineups sucked. But gloat on. Hey, maybe tomorrow John Edwards's dog will die! Then you can really have a field day! |
|
The show was almost sold out. The empty seats you see over President Gore's should were never for sale. The photographer is in front of the stage looking up, putting those seats high above and far behind the stage.
I highly doubt those particular seats were even offered for sale.
Sorry to disappoint. |
|
|
Global warming! the new sky is falling malarky that only dimwits can believe.The sun causes heat! Lack of sun causes cold,how simple it all is.Man can no more change the weather than he can create life.The all mighty is in charge and nothing we do can change that. |
|
How many penguins will it take to fill the Antarctica Live Earth stadium?
If a penguin claps and no human is there, does it sell any mp3s?
I hope that millions of ppl don't attend the Antarctica Live Earth concert. It would be horrible if the bands were so hot that that they sank into the polar ice cap.
I'm so mad at the martians and jovians. Thank God for the Liberals who keep earthlings on track. I think we need to send to send some Liberal representatives to Mars and Jupiter to explain to the denizens there about how to combat global warming.
Citizens of the Solar System unite! |
|
Drummaster, if you want to get butts in the seats, host a Boston Red Sox game.
A few weeks ago I took my son to a NLB Arizona D-Backs game against the Red Sox at Chase Field here in Phoenix.
That gave new meaning to "sold out". That game set a new record for attendance, which makes me wonder how that is possible given the fact that the D-Backs won the World Series against the Yankees after 9/11.
I've got the pix of that record-setting game if you've got the time. My 13-year-old son and me and his friend left in the 8th because it was like we were stargated to Boston. Everyone cheered more for the Sux... I mean the Sox... than for the D-Backs.
I've never seen anything like the Lobster Revolution. Red Sox fans are taking over the world.
In all of baseball I hate the Red Sox more than the Yankees because they always spoil my day. When the California angels were making a run for the World Series, the Red Sox spoiled it. Okay, our relief pitcher Danny Moore committed suicide after that game.
Baseball is only a game, right?
But it's America's pastime and amazingly, they still serve beer in glass bottles at ballparks. |
|
I think baseball is great but I wouldn't go to a major league game even if I could 1)Get a ticket and 2)Afford a ticket.
Reasons - 1)I might be seated next to some belligerent drunk whose wife had a headache last night and so she didn't feel like it, or someone else of similar bent who finds safety in the anonmyity of a crowd so he/she is gonna do his/her thing and to he** with the people around. 2)I have not forgiven baseball for the 1994 strike because they have not apologized - as long as the suckers keep buying tickets there is no reason to.
When I was a kid I would go to see the Baltimore Orioles play occasionally and Brooks Robinson is the greatest 3rd baseman in history. I once saw Ty Cobb at Memorial Stadium in Baltimore.
Sunday the 15th I'm going to go see the world famous Portland Sea Dogs play. And I occasionally stop to watch H.S. games.
I know this has nothing to do with Al Gore but a LOT of things have nothing to do with Al Gore. Possibly another reason for the attendance being low is the fact that a lot of the acts are just bad. I watched Kanye West for a few few seconds (I'm not proud of it) and he was just flat out bad, as in "I can't believe people are so gullible as to pay to see this fool" bad. As were all the others, but Kanye "George Bush hates black people" West deserves special mention. I watched a few snips from the Diana concert last week and the same word applies. Bad. To quote the immortal C. J. Cregg - "They were bad, Roger, they were just plain bad."
One more thing - It doesn't take a whole lot of brains to pay ridiculous prices for tickets and then stand in a mosh pit and jump up and down and whistle and clap and cheer while a performer is performing so you basically can't hear what the performer is saying because you and your "fellows" are making so much noise on your own.
In conclusion - I'd like to se the Red Sox win this year but it doesn't really make any difference at all - A day at Fenway is the most expensive ticket in baseball and they are sold out for at least this season and the next and so P.T. Barnum was right. |
|
My views towards Al Gore notwithstanding, I did indeed take a look at the still photos of "Live Earth" you linked ("empty seats")in your Blog.
This event might be considered a bust by some, however, photos #43, #61 (dumbfounded expression of Alec Baldwin with stadium in background), and #66 clearly present a different look from what you attmept to describe. I see what I would consider a rather full stadium--or, at least what I would describe as a pretty good crowd.
Perhaps you should have scanned this first before making so light of it.
|
|
|
I'm with you -- minor league baseball is the way to go -- more intimate, less crowded, and one of the last affordable family events in America. The A team near me offers tickets for $5 apiece -- and sell slices of pizza for about $1 each. So a family of 4 can get in and out for under $30 -- you can't even see a movie for that price anymore. No wonder video games have taken over kids' lives -- they are actually a bargain for parents. |
|
"The 'scientists' that are coming out against the theory don't deserve the title anymore."
Aaahh, professionals who don't agree with YOU and your liberal/socialist gang should be done away with???
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=117
Sensational statements by Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC supporter
June 23rd, 2007 by Warwick Hughes
Dr Trenberth says,
“In fact there are no predictions by
IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
"In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
"If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position."
------------------------------------------------------
Do we see a pattern here? It's no different from the Fairness Doctrine... they don't like the Conservative views going out over talk radio and the grass roots web sites, so let's shut them down or DEMAND equal time.....
|
|
I'm not even a big baseball fan, but I have really enjoyed going to a few minor league games in Reading, PA and Wilmington, DE.
Real family fun...
|
|
Frey writes:
"The "scientists" that are coming out against the theory don't deserve the title anymore. Most of their arguments could be debunked by an undergrad science major."
If this is true, why do the advocates of global warming consistently refuse to publicly debate the scientists expressing skepticism? Many such challenges have been issued, none have been accepted.
If this is true, why do global warming advocates like Michael Mann of the famous hockey stick graph refuse to reveal their computational methods to other researchers -- refuse for years and years until they are forced by freedom-of-information requests?
If this is true, why do global warming advocates like Hansen refuse to release the data on which their studies are based?
If this is true, why do the major blogs run by global warming advocates -- blogs like RealClimate -- refuse to allow skeptics to post comments on their blogs questioning their theories, comments which, according to you, should be easily refuted?
If this is true, why does the IPCC panel only look at the peer-reviewed scientific papers that support their global warming theories while utterly ignoring large numbers of other peer-reviewed studies that contradict it?
If this is true, why won’t the IPCC release the names of the 2500 “scientists” it claims agree with its reports and conclusions?
If this is true, why has the IPCC historically refused to release the comments that these scientists have submitted concerning the IPCC’s conclusions?
If this is true, why did an independent review ordered by the US Congress -- a review conducted by Dr. Wegman, a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association) -- confirm that the statistical methods used by Mann to construct his famous hockey stick graph that purports to show drastic, recent warming are invalid and will produce the same trend even when random data is fed in?
If this is true, why does the IPCC find it necessary to simply discard data that contradicts its conclusions, the way they have discarded the data that recent tree ring studies show that tree rings are not necessarily a reliable proxy for historical temperature records -- the very records the IPCC is using to “prove” recent global warming?
If this is true, why do people like Al Gore have to be dishonest in presenting their argument? For instance, in his famous movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore shows a graph of how temperatures over the last 250,000 years have risen and fallen as carbon dioxide levels rise and fall -- but he doesn’t tell the audience that a slightly closer examination shows changes in carbon dioxide FOLLOW changes in temperatures -- that when temperatures begin to rise, the increase in temperature PRECEEDS the increase in carbon dioxide levels by 700 - 1000 years, and that when temperatures begin to fall, carbon dioxide levels continue rising for another 700 - 1000 years -- all of which means that the data indicates global warming causes carbon dioxide levels to increase, not the other way around.
Why is this dishonesty necessary?
If scientists are so certain of the truth of the global warming theory, why are they so anxious to terminate further research and declare the issue closed and settled? |
|
Manfred said:
"Because obviously the failure (if it was a failure) of these concerts has no bearing on a) the truth or untruth of global warming"
It is true that the truth or falsehood of a theory is not a function of how many people believe it to be true (or are willing to attend a concert held to promote it). Otherwise, the sun would indeed revolve around a flat earth.
But I wonder, are you prepared to be consistent in applying this principle?
Because this same principle renders irrelevant a favorite claim of global warming advocates: namely, the claim that global warming must be true because the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with the theory -- that the science is "settled by consensus". Are you prepared to repudiate that argument too?
And while we are at this game of being consistent, are you willing to be equally consistent and acknowledge that the proper course of action to take in Iraq is not a function of President Bush’s approval rating? That staying in Iraq may indeed be the right thing to do even though 70% of the electorate thinks otherwise? |
|
GLOBAL WARMING, per se!
It was only about how well or not well the concerts did...
My posts to you, Frey, had only to do with your inane statements:
The "scientists" that are coming out against the theory don't deserve the title anymore.
Most of their arguments could be debunked by an undergrad science major.
Two of the most stunningly stupid and vapid statements made so far... but typical of a communist mentality...
|
|
AlGore and his socialistic minions jet everywhere expelling their false claim that man is destroying the Earth. And yet, AlGore still lives in the mansion that uses more electricity than most American neighborhoods, he still uses private jets for travel, and still rides in limosuines, and SUVs for his road travel.
What a big piece of whale crap he is. This huckster has the leeser intelligent, the waterheads of our society, running scared as if the world was coming to an end. All of the ant farts and cow belches aren't going to destroy the Earth.
The only way Earth will be destroyed is when a meteor hits, or if the Sun explodes. And if the world is no longer free to think for themselves, I would welcome an obliteration of this miserable rock. I'll just sit on my front porch, drink my beer, smoke my cigar, and laugh as all the little numbskulls run around in the last hour.
Hey AlGore, practice what you preach. And you say man is the destruction of the Earth. Well if that is the case, why don't you lead by example, and shut your filthy lying piehole permanently.
Screw you and the rest of the dirt worshipping snake oil salesmen.
Without appologies......... |
|
|
Getting a crowd in DC is not that big of a deal. I was glad to leave the DC area years ago to move to a small city. You could not do anything in DC without being part of a crowd. |
|
Look, your argument only makes sense at the most superficial level. You give three examples, and none really corresponds to the others. I will take them in order.
a) global warming cannot be verified based on the sales of tickets for any number of reasons, but the key one in this case is that few of us sit around studying (independently) climate models or, for that matter, anything that would allow us to come to scientifically valid conclusions. In other words: the vast majority of people have absolutely no idea (independent of experts) what they are talking about.
b) now, scientists DO (assumedly) have an idea what they are talking about. Sure, it, too, is flawed, limited, and subject to error. But a key element of science -- as opposed to politics -- is a opposition to dogmatism. If scientists discover their models are flawed, they seek to fix them (hence the canard that evolution is a "theory" -- everything is a "theory" in science, because it is always subject to revision. It doesn't mean that scientists don't agree that it is essentially fact -- just as gravity is a "theory."). So if scientists overwhelmingly agree on a theory, it is likely a pretty accurate explanation of phenomena, because they sign on to things that are independently verifiable (and that means, too, that the experiment can be REPEATED by others).
c) I don't disagree entirely with your point about Bush. Leadership does mean getting out front of people sometimes. There are, however, two problems -- one is that you might be WRONG, as Bush is. Another is that you might also seem to be out front when in fact you are behind -- this is, after all, a democracy, which means our officials are supposed to be responsive to their constituents. Is Bush everyone's President, or is he merely his base's President? If our officials begin ignoring the people whom they represent, then there is something wrong with the whole system. |
|
|
Yesterday, Hugh or someone was ridiculing these concerts for affecting hipness. Now Patrick is ridiculing them for low attendance--for not being hip enough. The common denominator here is ridicule--the-stock-in-trade for today's Republican. |
|
Liberal Patriot,
My friend, you wrote;
----------
"The common denominator here is ridicule--the-stock-in-trade for today's Republican."
----------
Since you frequently ridicule people, does that mean YOU are a Republican ?
|
|
I write with authority on matters like salvation, religion, politics, patriotism, the national interest, values, moral principles. And you all don't like it because you assume all authority on these matters is on your side.
I already told you, OHM, that my parents were liberal Republicans and if there were such an animal today, I would be one. My heart and sympathey is with the party of Lincoln--but not the party of Jesse Helms.
Yes, I do ridicule and take ridicule as well. I notice that many of the people in here who deliver snide and harsh comments are also good guys. I would like to think that I am one of them. |
|
Waaahhhhh. GAT says I'm a crybaby. I'm telling my mommy.
Too much focus in politics these days on whether something is effective or relevant, and not enough on whether it is right. No wonder our policy is so screwed up. We have rocket-scientists like you wagging your finger at us and saying: "it has no power." |
|
I don't believe I complained. I made an observation. And its the truth. Ridicule is a primary, if not the primary, political tool of today's Republicans. You use it on all your enemies. And it is politically effective--if morally hollow. Who the heck wants to vote for a ridiculous candidate?
If you haven't noticed, Townhall is primarily a Republican forum (although they are good enough to tolerate the likes of me). And since my daddy did not raise me to turn the other cheek--even though on a Christian level, I know I should--I take ridicule and give ridicule on these boards.
You want me to turn the cheek, otherwise I'm a "quintessential liberal hypocrite." Like some wife-beater, you want the power to slap someone down without reprecussions. Sorry, chump. I ain't your b*tch. You right-wingers always exact higher standards from others than you are willing to endure yourself. |
|
|
Or let me put it this way. Dems have the morality of lambs and Republix have the morality of lions. When you Republix encounter a lamb who is in fact a lion, you sniffle and moan about "hypocrisy." As long as the lions are devouring the lambs, because lambs are not allowed to act like lions--due to their own moral code--everything is groovy in the lion world. Well, I ain't no lamb, and I ain't no hypocrite either--at least, relative to the likes of you. |
|
You object to the "canard" that macro-evolution (I can only assume that's the one you're referring to) is nothing more than a theory:
"(hence the canard that evolution is a "theory" -- everything is a "theory" in science, because it is always subject to revision. It doesn't mean that scientists don't agree that it is essentially fact -- just as gravity is a "theory.")."
And then you go on to define the terms under which scientific "theories" are, in essence, somewhat transitory facts subject to revision:
"So if scientists overwhelmingly agree on a theory, it is likely a pretty accurate explanation of phenomena, because they sign on to things that are independently verifiable (and that means, too, that the experiment can be REPEATED by others)."
Macro-evolution is not independently verifiable, nor has any experiment at any time reproduced the phenomenon on any scale. And yet I keep being told that if I don't BELIEVE in macro-evolution's self-evident, axiomatic explanations for the origins of different species on this planet (despite science's failure to reproduce the phenomenon in any form), I must be some ignorant back-water hick in Jesusland that shoots varmints with my pappy's scattergun.
Instead of, you know, someone who maintains a healthy level of skepticism for extraordinary, unverifiable claims.
If a scientific theory requires the ingredients you described in order to be supportable and accepted, even temporarily, as a fact, then how is macro-evolution any more than just an unverified theory? Unlike, say, gravity?
And more to the topic at hand, since this whole silly Global Warming hysteria is propped up by the notion that elevated levels of man-made CO2 -- an insignificant participant in the purported "greenhouse effect" and one to which man makes very little contribution in any event -- are causing it, shouldn't some scientist, somewhere, be able to reproduce an experiment to some scale demonstrating that increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 produces increases in atmospheric temperature?
Of course, they haven't done that. And, more importantly, they can't do that. Setting aside the rank inferiority of science's tools and models in understanding our climate, all of the evidence suggests that increases in CO2 levels are caused by increases in atmospheric temperature, not the other way around. There really are inconvenient truths out there, and a good many of them are laughing at Al Gore.
Why the selective commitment to scientific principles? |
|
You aren't an American, are you?! You sound like a friggin Limey.
I'm sure in the vapors of your mind, you are accepting the triumphant cheers of a grateful multitude. But frankly, your last post is nutso.
I'm here, baby, dishing out punches and taking them as well. As my uncle used to tell me, the first thing to do when you get into a fight is accept the fact you're gonna get hit. |
|
|
That's why they get ridiculed. |
|
Maybe so, but it is one thing to ridicule an argument and another to dispose of it. I think Americans are coming around to the realization when the Republicans treat someone with scorn, they are engaging in flimflam. The record shows that Republican platitudes do not translate into effective governance. Rather than defend their worldview, which falls into disarray and contradiction in the higher orders of complexity, they start throwing sand in the air about how ridiculous their opponents are.
Like I said, it has worked in the past: Clinton the reprobate, Gore the liar, Kerry the flipflopper, McCain the madman, probably Obama the Superfly. But now you have a record to defend: borrow and spend fiscal policies, divisive and foolish leadership in the GWOT, a cavalier approach to the environment, amoral and lawless exercise of power, low rent and low character cronyism and corruption. Now all your ridicule and scorn is just going to confirm to Americans that you are not serious people and that the Republicans are not a serious party. |
|
|
I'm not questioning your Americanism. I'm asking if you are an American. There's a difference. Your English is a little different. But insanity crosses national boundaries, and you just go on taking bows before the cheering throngs. |
|
Liberal Patriot,
Friend, we all like to have a little fun with you from time-to-time because you take yourself soooo seriously, and you often contradict yourself from one thread to the next----sometimes you even contradict yourself within the same paragraph.
You're "free" to write whatever you want here on the Townhall boards, but as I initially pointed out, it's a little amusing that in this thread you were castigating Republicans for "ridiculing" their political opponents---yet YOU are always ridiculing Republicans.
|
|
My friend, those are not contradictions you detect, but a massive, intricate, rational worldview--the likes of which you have never seen before.
Hm. Now that you mention it, maybe I DO take myself a bit too seriously. |
|
|
|
Things are so dismal for the GOP the best you can do to feel good about yourselves is to look at a picture of empty seats (that weren't for sale in the first place) and say, "See? Global warming is fake!"
I swear, you can't make this stuff up! |
|
Apparently Fox and Rush didn't tell you that 49% of senators and 46% of representatives (i.e., congress) are republicans.
Never mind the thumpin' (Dumbya's words, not mine) you people took in the last election - look at the fundraising problems your sorry candidates are having, while Democrats raise record amounts.
I swear, its like watching dinosaurs go extinct right before my own eyes! |
|
LOL.
LibPat The Lion Hearted
An absolute classic. That one needs to stick somehow though I'm not sure Richard would be too thrilled. |
|
I live in the grown-up world, although I don't recall seeing you in it.
Everyone hates Congress. The question is, do they hate their Congressman? If you want to know how Dems will fare in the next election, better look at it district by district. I like our chances.
Btw, I agree with you that grownups do not think Bush caused 9/11 (he may have ignored the warning signs, but he didn't cause it). And I don't think Speaker Pelosi will save us all. Nor do I think the sky is falling. But your diaper talk is idiotic. As are you, I'm begining to think.
Is this congenital with Republicans today? All this chest-thumping about how you have won the debate; meanwhile, your opponent is still standing, still strong, still the better man. |
|
Liberal Patriot the Lion Hearted,
My friend, you wrote;
----------------
"...those are not contradictions you detect, but a massive, intricate, rational worldview--the likes of which you have never seen before."
----------------
Oh, I disagree---I've seen your 'worldview' before.
In fact, I often see your "massive, intricate worldview" expressed by Daily Kos, The Nation magazine, and Al-Jazeera !
|
|
I looked at your blog, and now I get it... you're one of those sneaky liberals who masquerades as a nutty conservative! Infiltrate from within, as it were.
I won't let on . ;) |
|
The majority of libs I know all have one thing in common. They all want something for nothing. They all are bitter because there are people that have more than they do. They do not want to take responsibility for their actions.
This pretty much sums up the libs I know.
|
|
|
Alright, that was 3 things in common. |
|
|
There's a reason why there are so few crowd shots. |
|
I'm a newbie to this blogstuff,but enjoying the feel of it immensely.Long time reader & listener of Hugh-Dennis-Bill B and a member of the CABAL since '80.Refugee from the Leftward regions,but jumped aboard the Cell with Podhoretz,Irving K.&
other of the old HST-JFK Dems.Lifelong student of History and (though I stay under the Hollyweird treeline letting others in the 'bidness know--SURVIVAL,ya understand...)30 year dweller in the 'mainline'TV Land and now creaking around this(new for me)Hewitt Blogland.
Happy to make yer aquaintances. |
|
A bunch of has-beens living in luxury and telling the rest of us not to. Plus, an emcee (Owlgore) who is about as exciting as watching paint dry. What could go wrong?
When the liberals were done praising Gaia, at least someone picked up their trash for them. |
|
From Sunday, July, 08, 2007 11:14 AM
So, instead of putting forth some actual scientific arguments, you just call me a censorer and communist.
People like you are the reason nobody but the far right comes to this site anymore. |
|
Why is it now that good OLD Al is talking about making his house more Green.
Just maybe he got caught on his own usage and is now trying to look green. LOL
Follow your false GOD.
I do wonder though, what happened to all you 1970's the world is freezing fools. |
|
...why do more Americans believe the threat of global warming than believe we're winning the war in Iraq? (and don't blame the MSM that couldn't come up with any reasons not to invade Iraq when there were a million obvious reasons not to)
BTW, the reason the Democratic controlled Congress has bad poll numbers is because the change in power WE THE PEOPLE granted Democrats last November was supposed to result in us leaving Iraq ASAP. Since that hasn't yet happened, THE PEOPLE ARE PISSED. Don't you get it? A majority of Americans want us out of Iraq and they know bush won't do the right thing, so they expect Congress to take action. Since no action has been taken, their poll numbers are down. GET IT?
Who said Bush caused 911? He just caused the miserably planned response to 911.
|
|
|
has never been to Mars or the Moon. And look at them, just look at them! How much more proof do we need that Al is the answer? |
|
Yusuf,
I saw you over 30 years ago, before you converted to the religion known as, Islam.
Before you put your guitar down. Before you put your writing pen down. Before you turned away from musical expression as it was not deemed acceptable by your new religious beliefs.
Now, decades later, you have a conversation with your son and he convinces you to pick up your guitar and play, and sing, not just for your friends, but for the world. I downloaded and listened to you play in Hamburg, Germany for, "Live Earth". I heard you play songs you wrote before you embraced Islam. I heard you play Peace Train and Wild World. How surreal it is to hear you. It was your son as catalyst for this appearance before the world, not your God. A mere mortal defined this ability for you---your son---not your Father.
But you cannot sing and play without ignoring that which takes place in your own religion, the pain, suffering, hate, violence going on as you strum those strings and carry the ears of so many in the audience who do not understand.
Your voice is clear. Your music remains melodic. Your message is not so different from that one you sent out 4 decades ago----in a different time.
But, the time is different now.
Your religion captures attention of all countries, if only because of those within it who have hijacked any message of, love, forgiveness, caring, sharing.
Now you sing new songs, 'Ruins', and 'Midday'.
Your voice is just as clear, resonant as it was long ago--in different times.
But your message is old. It has not addressed that which goes on in Muslim countries by the hands of those who carry the voice of yoru religion.
You have a choice like every other person who lives in a free world---or, do you? Yours could be a message which attempts to turn around the ugliest display of religious manifestations in our modern world---in modern times.
You sing your old songs.
It is so safe to do so.
This does not portend to burden you with weight you are incapable of carrying. It is merely an observation.
It merely gives witness that you performed this week for the first time in decades---in a different time---in a truly "Wild World".
Yours is one more voice that has not spoken out against the atrocities seen within a belief system you hold dear to yourself.
You sacrificed yourself to Islam ages ago.
How has that religion treated you?
How is Islam treating those who die every day at the hands of followers interpreting it in ways which are known to you as an insider?
This week you played in front of millions of people. You picked up your guitar and sang as if it was 40 years ago and nothing had changed over the years. But it has.
And it appears that your voice shall too remain silent. Yours is not strong enough to carry the weight.
And, the world waits. It waits for the modest voice of muslims to address the ugliness it sees and hears daily emanating from the muslim world.
It is not yours.
We continue to expect too much. |
|
I love politics, and I am a conservative, so it is only natural that I would be drawn to this site. I greatly enjoy the columnists and the bloggers are first-rate!
I especially like that anyone is free to leave a comment. This thread is an example of all that is good about Townhall!
AZgirl, you had me laughing at the thought of aging rockers mired in ice...and that penguin remark--hilarious! Jim, BigDawgg, your descriptions are awesome, and they also gave me a chuckle.
Townhall also allows dissenters to post--that is a very good thing! We need to hear what people of differing political stripes have to say whether or not we agree with them.
I like it that conservatives do not reserve their shots for liberals only. We duke it out with each other quite frequently. Just mention the name Ron Paul...ring the bell...the fight is on!
I must say though, Clarityseeker, your post aimed at Cat Stevens is worthy of an award! It is eloquent, poignant, truthful....beautiful throughout! When he supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie years ago, I knew a voice of reason for creativity was lost to us, and it saddens me to this day. Again, that was one of the most moving posts I have ever read here, and I thank you for that.
To all of you who post, right, left, center--thanks for brightening my day, for making me think, for making me laugh, for bringing me to tears, for sometimes ticking me off!
|
|
Yours are words of kindness; my day just got better. Mine started out very sad while watching a musician I had such high admiration for. As I watched, a flood of sadness and disappointment filled me as I realized that Yusuf chose to ignore the obvious---at least obvious to me. I was not yearning for him to disparage his religion. Nor would I have wanted him to put his family at risk, such as Salman Rushdie did in speaking out courageously nearly 20 years ago.
Yusuf was on that stage right next to Cat Stevens. He had an audience of millions. He had a golden opportunity to speak, albeit brief, succinct, direct. In his deepest soul, the one he tapped into for so many songs so long ago, and still does to this day, this human being could have creatively and gently spoken to a world hungering for a message from Islam which is different from the psychotic one we all hear day in and day out.
Muslims killing Christians in Lebanon since the arrival of Yasser Arafat in 1972.
Muslims blatantly abusing and killing Coptics (Christians) in Egypt for uncountable years.
Muslims killing Jews in Israel and other places.
Muslims killing people in Sudan.
Muslims killing people in Nigeria--while "protesting" caricatures of Mohammed.
Muslims killing in Somalia.
Muslims killing in Ethiopia.
Muslims killing in...
Muslims killing...
Muslims...
Yusuf gets on stage to address millions of people---and plays 2 songs from his "unenlightened" era and 2 songs from his spiritually renewed times.
It all sounded old. It all fell flat. He has made too many public announcements related to his faith--only for the sake of its benefit. But where is the voice which questions?
I grew up in a time when everything was questioned---government, parents, authority of all types, religion, corporations, education. No one came away unscathed from investigation after the 1960's. No one taught this message more clearly then the musicians of that time. Cat Stevens was part of that.
Does he no longer question with such broad strokes?
Live Earth, for me anyway, was revelatory on a very personal level.
Watching musical celebrities perform for the cause of global warming as they generate a "carbon" footprint larger than Al Gore's.
And watching Cat Stevens stand up in front of a crowd for the first time in 4 decades, open his mouth, and hear deafening silence.
|
|
|
|
Anthropological Caused Global Warming more Hype than Science.
I taped "Live Earth" and reviewed the highlights, it was a bust- unless your a concert freak. Celebs were doing more self promoting than alternative promoting and many being stupid about it. As many of you have observed Al Gore is a typical politico who is more into promoting his own agenda:
Look up:
Ponder The Maunder
Facts and Fictions of Al Gore’s: "An Inconvenient Truth"
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html
Al Gore's real agenda is:
Al did not make this movie because he cares; something obvious when you consider his own lifestyle. He did not exactly make this movie to run for president. This movie has grossed over 60 million dollars to date and it hasn't even made it to cable. Al charges over $100,000 per slide show.
But the real money that Al will make is through his new company, Generation Investment Management, a company that seeks to establish the rules and licensing for the new carbon-trading scheme. We have all heard of politicians who lie for money and power; it looks as if Al did not retire after all.
To find out the real reason for global warming, go to this site and click on the graphic tp view the PPT presentation or you can down load it. Really good presentation:
http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/search/label/Powerpoint
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Global Warming and Science
http://www.falabellabreeders.org/ppt/global%20warming%20and%20science%20green.pps
Also lookup:
The heat's in the sun
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=67ac2d90-ec56-4460-a831-75aacc20670d
Part of The Deniers series
If you follow the real agenda for 'AGW' it's mostly about money and power. The IPCC is a politico organization and not a scientific one. You can find out more about that on the 'A Dog Named Kyoto' site.
Notice! A Senator by the name of Bingaman is attempting to introduce a carbon trading scheme on the new energy bill that is currently being devised in Congress. It's kind of a disaster like the woe-be-gone past immigration bill that got shot down. To find out why read this article:
Alan Caruba
The Great Cap-and-Trade Scam
May 13, 2007 01:00 PM EST
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25060.html
I got skunked into the global warming alarmisms through Carl Segan's Nova series. It wasn't till the internet came out I was able to intelligently research it through. To be scientifically informed is more important that ever. I urge you to check out thoses site and others like 'CO2 Science' for the truth instead of the hype from both sides of the issue. Then, have discusions about it with people you trust. From there you may feel informed enough to take on strangers at blogs, tech sites, or even liberal sites. But don't waste your time arguing with those who don't want to carry on with intelligent discusions.
The issue is security through energy independence and efficiency instead of 'fwee' energy, carbon nuetral or sequestering schemes. We should not have to live like zero impact man on Nightline, only idiots or fools would live like that. But he did have a good concept on composting but not under the sink! There are sensible, healthful, economic things to do that can save energy and enrich your life as well. A good site to go to: http://www.technologyreview.com
Beware of politico's with grand social schemes for more often then not it's to rob you of your wealth or freedoms. Don't pledge your futures away.
Cheers to you all and here to a saner 2008. I will try to keep in touch. |
|
|
|