UPDATE5: 5/5/10:30AM Donna Laframboise pulls out of the conference.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/
Instead, those of us who had accepted Heartland’s invitation to take part in its conference found ourselves blindsided – a mere two weeks before the conference is set to begin – by a torrent of negative press. Suddenly, we were all publicly linked to an organization that thinks it’s OK to equate people concerned about climate change with psychopaths.
Blindsided is right. AFAIK, not one attendee was given the courtesy of weighing in on the billboard campaign beforehand, and if I had been given that courtesy my answer would have been a resounding NO. Instead, I believe we all got the notice after the fact.
UPDATE4: 7PM PST Heartland issues a press release ending the billboard
May 4, 2012 – The Heartland Institute has pulled its global warming billboard starring Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber whose manifesto expressed his belief in catastrophic man-caused global warming. The digital billboard ran for exactly 24 hours along the Eisenhower Expressway near Chicago in the suburb of Maywood, Illinois.
The following statement by Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast may be used for attribution. For more information, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312-377-4000.
“This provocative billboard was always intended to be an experiment. And after just 24 hours the results are in: It got people’s attention.
“This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message. We found it interesting that the ad seemed to evoke reactions more passionate than when leading alarmists compare climate realists to Nazis or declare they are imposing on our children a mass death sentence. We leave it to others to determine why that is so.
“The Heartland Institute doesn’t often do ‘provocative’ communication. In fact, we’ve spent 15 years presenting the economic and scientific arguments that counter global warming alarmism. No one has worked harder, or better, on that task than Heartland. We will continue to do that – especially at our next International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago from May 21 – 23.
“Heartland has spent millions of dollars contributing to the real debate over climate change, and $200 for a one-day digital billboard. In return, we’ve been subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists. The other side of the climate debate seems to be playing by different rules. This experiment produced further proof of that.
“We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”
========================================================
UPDATE3: 3:15PM PST I saw this private letter to Joe Bast earlier from Ross McKitrick, and I agreed with Ross in a reply. He has posted it on Climate Audit so I’ll share an excerpt here:
He wrote: “This kind of fallacious, juvenile and inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to enhance your reputation…”
“…hands your opponents a huge stick to beat you with, and sullies the reputation of the speakers you had recruited. Any public sympathy you had built up as a result of the Gleick fiasco will be lost–and more besides–as a result of such a campaign. I urge you to withdraw it at once.”.
UPDATE2: 1PM PST
From Joe Bast via email:
We will stop running it at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.)
UPDATE: I’ve added a simple poll at the bottom to gauge opinion on this issue. – Anthony
There’s a disturbance in the farce. Tom Nelson captures these:
Do you believe global warming is real, poses risks to the environment, and needs to be addressed? The Heartland Institute, a think-tank based in Chicago which has promoted climate skepticism, wants you to know you’re in some sinister company.
Twitter / @eilperin: In new ads, the Heartland …
In new ads, the Heartland Institute suggests only terrorists believe in the link b/w human activity and global warming: wapo.st/IOUuEI
Predictably, ThinkProgress/Climate Progress is all bent out of shape.
But Joe Romm and Brad Johnson (who now also runs “Forecast the Facts” to hassle TV weatherpeople) think nothing of making a similar comparison about “deniers”.
Speaking of “mass murderers and madmen”….
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/25/277564/norway-terrorist-is-a-global-warming-denier/
Romm of course will be unable to embrace his own hypocrisy, because he’s reportedly paid a six figure sum by the Center for American Progress to write the hateful detritus he produces daily.
That said, I’ll be blunt; I think Heartland’s billboard campaign is a huge misstep, and does nothing but piss people off and divide the debate further. IMHO it isn’t going to win any converts, and had they asked me I would have told them that it is a bad idea that will backfire on them.
Here’s what they have issued in a press release about it:
May 03, 2012May 3, 2012 – Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too.
Heartland’s first digital billboard – along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) in Maywood – is the latest effort by the free-market think tank to inform the public about what it views as the collapsing scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming. It is also reminding viewers of the questionable ethics of global warming’s most prominent proponents.
“The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists,” said Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast. “They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).
Bast added, “The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory.” For more about the billboards and why Heartland says people should not still believe in global warming, click here.
Ugh. Ugly.
There’s more than enough climate ugliness to go around. Though, it seems harder and harder to find this ultimate warmist embarrassment.
Anybody that can help with Donna’s suggestion?
And there’s many more examples of climate ugliness from the left that we’ve seen.
On another note, the serially mendacious commenter known as “Dorlomin” left this comment over at the Romm shop:
dorlomin says:
I thought I should clear this up. First, “dorlomin” of course is all about smear, that’s his MO, and the MO of the many anonymous cowards who purvey such things without having any integrity or courage themselves.
Second, the simple fact is that I didn’t know about the association of the person making the claim that “Climate skepticism could soon be a criminal offence in UK
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/19/climate-skepticism-could-soon-be-a-criminal-offence-in-uk/
Third, when I learned who was behind the story, I immediately took it down because it was an inappropriate source, just like I don’t post videos from LaRouche and other fringe organizations.
Of course “dorlomin” and left foot forward would have you believe that I consort with these folks and have them over for drinks and dinner, rather than the fact that once I learned more, I found them offensive and immediately deleted the story. It was my mistake for not checking sources further.
“dorlomin” is of course playing the very hate game he rants about, and is hypocritically blind just like Romm. The only difference is that one is paid to produce propoganda and the other is a coward.
But will Climate Progress delete their offensive story about climate deniers and terrorists? Not likely, it would hurt their sales figures image.
POLL:
Note: multiple anti vote stuffing features are enabled in this poll. I’ve made the questions simple so that editorial bias in the questions is minimal.
At 9:20 AM on 7 May, Doug Proctor posted:
Bullpuckey and dreimal bullpuckey.
I’ve long noted the illiterate gormlessness of people who use the expression “ad hominem” inappropriately as a Latin tag to give the spurious impression of education when what they mean is simply “insulting.”
Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attacking a disputant’s position on the basis of personality (actual or alleged) instead of addressing said disputant’s claims. Simply put, it’s an evasion of the responsibility to hammer on the topic at hand, and it’s that evasion, not the inclusion of condemnation per se, which makes of argumentum ad hominem a fallacy rendering one’s line of attack invalid.
I do wish that people like Mr. Proctor would get a goddam grip on the concepts of formal logic and quit flashing their buttocks in public by using the expression “ad hominem” with such pretentious idiocy.
Yes, it’s insulting to observe before all the world that las warmistas include among their ranks prominent persons – notably religious whackjobs in full Islamic berserkergang, bomb-building “ecology” loons, murderous “Helter Skelter” types, cancerous “Bolivarian Revolution” socialists, et alia – whom honest men and women have every conceivable good and proper cause to loathe.
But in addition to the fact that the “crippled conjecture” of AGW is a ginormous blivet, there’s also the undeniable reality that the Unabomber is a heartfelt True Believer in this insanity, and had been impelled at least in part to murder people on the basis of his adherence thereunto.
As I’ve been asking, what’s wrong with telling people about it?
If such an observation, plainly voiced, makes las warmistas howl with agony, isn’t that a wonderful proof that – in addition to addressing the manifold ways in which their crap qualifies as purest Cargo Cult Science – we should be slamming them with further public acknowledgements of their association with egregiously vicious sociopaths as the exemplars of their cult’s peculiar invidious appeal?
Smokey,
I’m with you on most points. Donna and Ross are giants among us, but they, like you said, are also fallible and need to remember that. I’d like to see them calm down and perhaps follow up, as you say, with a letter commending Heartland for its attempt to repair a situation. I just happen to think that what motivated them was good intent, that they over-shot with their critique in the hope of underlining the fact, to a mercurial public, that unlike the Alarmists, we skeptics are free-thinkers, capable of introspection. Instead, as you say again, they seriously wounded a good friend all because of a disagreement over tactics on a minor publicity stunt.
What I would like to see is both Ross and Donna attending the Heartland Conference and along with the others, making room an informal discussion on ideas for public relations approaches and ways to promote our position(s). Never mind sessions in seminar rooms, do it over ribs and wings and keep the wine and beer flowing, I’m not keen on a centralized approach, and I think Pointman’s way of fighting his own battle has a lot of merit. to it We’re up gainst powerful forces wielding billions of dollars, commanding institutions, government departmentss and media, and the only way we can prevail against the Behemoth is with the “cell” or “guerrila” systems. At the same time, having easier access to information, data and issues and a way to communicate quickly, will require some centralization. In that, I think, WUWT ha grown into the position of such a “brokerage” and we need to prerhaps build on that. More on Anthony’s shoulders, but more of us need to step up to the plate. For example, with over two decades in high-end print and Web graphics, I have a few vague notions kicking around the back of my head, but I’m a lousy organizer, lack anything resembling leadership skills, and suck at the research and the science. But I do make good picture and pull together effective text once I know what needs to be done. To be able to access facts and ideas from an open forum and to seek advise and genuine peer review of my work would be incredible. And the beauty is that all of this can be out there in the open, for the Alarmists to gawk and attempt to concoct “counter-measures” and such useless bull, because the truth and honest tactics need not be hidden….and they can never work as fast as dedicated volunteers.
While we shouldn’t be trashing each other publicly, something we do way too often, maintaining a vigorous dialogue is our strength. I’m not big on the secrecy bit; that’s the Achilles’ heel of the Alarmists, who think they are little Machiavellis, and it will be their undoing. Education and public outreach are honourable aims to be developed in the open with as much input as possible and judging by Peter Gleick’s freaking, the Warmies are terrified of it. They imagine millions from Big Oil behind us, and their semi-competent, ageing old-school PR gurus who are losing ground to us can’t figure out why have convinced them that they need to double-down and spend millions more to get out The Message effectively. Let them waste their times on their 60s and 70s “ad-men” fantasies, their committees and studies. Anyhow, I tghink that it’s these kind of discussions we should be having, instead of jumping down each other throats.
doug said:
The climate wars are being fought with intellectual concepts.
so you think this war is about climate? for a self identified skeptic, that’s extraordinarily gullible.
while you were distracted , you lost control of your future as well. so you still want to argue about the weather? what can you possibly win? a vowel?
gorm free, untroubled by passion
a tabula rasa
palimpsest of drool.
crazy- cuz maybe god tazed you
you’re in the asylum now so better learn the rules.
gouging the coins from our pockets
our eyes from their sockets
so we can be
gorm freeeeeeeeee
Smokey says:
May 7, 2012 at 4:44 am
“It would be a major credit to those who wrote letters excoriating Heartland to now write an open follow-up letter praising them for promptly removing the ad.”
Shrug, they’d still just be fooling themselves. The ad was put up for a test. I think a very good one.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/alan_bullock_quote_35c9
Quote from Alan Bullock
“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
Bring it into the open..
Ignorance does not equate to stupidity – those who don’t know they’ve been manipulated by very clever and very well practised propaganda techniques will continue to be the means to repress the dissonant voice of truth.
@sunsettommy on May 7, 2012 at 6:25 am
If you are going to imitate what the shysters do, then you have lost and they have won. It is best if they do what they are doing. Admit their mistake (shysters never do), and move on.
ClimateProgress took down the article mentioned above. However, they cross-posted it to Grist which for now is still available here:
http://grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-07-25-norway-terrorist-is-a-climate-change-denier/
I created a pdf copy of the article if anyone needs it.
I hope Donna, Ross, and the rest are happy now.
@Smokey, It’s never your enemies you have to fear …
Pointman
Doug Proctor,
Get a grip, friend. Really. There’s no reason to polarize this issue and make it way bigger than it is. Donna will sort things out herself, ideologically, professionally and socially and she doesn’t need goading into extreme positions. We all have our reasons and personal goals and agendas and we act on them accordingly.
Reality check: This is a kerfaffle over an ad. An ad, not scripture. If you’ve ever worked in a large ad agency, you’d see dozens of ad concepts flop in the concept stage every week, and at least one that bombs every month. Sometimes you got all sorts of experts working on an idea and in the end, you still never know which way it’s going to go. Somethimes the concept sucks but the execution saves it, sometimes it’s the other way around. In this case the idea is not bad; the Alarmists have been ponderously developing and monopolizing the notion that skeptics are unsavoury types, associating us with Big Oil and even Anders Breivik. This may have been an attempt to fire a shot across their bow, to remind them that we can haul dirt too and that they are far more vulnerable with far more to lose. And there is plenty of dirt on them, without even bringing in the fascist and Nazi eco-nuttery connection from the last century; that one, for example, needs finicky handling with surgical gloves.
Unless I’m missing something, the ad didn’t work; upsetting our community and necessitating the ad’s withdrawal is the proof of that. Nothing else, nothing deeper, nothing profound. I’m speculating that the the ad didn’t work mainly because you can’t pop this sort of a concept out of the blue and this aggressively in this format. Not if you’re the Heartland Institute…you see, the ad’s source is another thing that makes a difference. Whether it was intended as an experiment or not doesn’t matter; it still yielded good data, and hundreds of us will draw helpful conclusions for future campaigns….which is why I downloaded this whole comments section. Marketing is not a science, a religion or an intellectual pursuit, it’s a rude, amoral witchery, no matter what the quazi-educated PR puffs try to tell you. The Kaczinsky thing may have worked had it been done differently within another chain of concepts but as it is, it simply came across as unsophisticated and slanderous to the more refined among us. But now we have another baseline for calibration. End of story, let’s move on.
philjourdan says:
May 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm
@sunsettommy on May 7, 2012 at 6:25 am
If you are going to imitate what the shysters do, then you have lost and they have won. It is best if they do what they are doing. Admit their mistake (shysters never do), and move on.
——————————–
Wrong, you out-shyster the shysters and when they whine and ask for mercy, you grind their face with your heel. That’s what you do with a superior force. That’s if you want to get anywhere, that is.
The only problem with the ad I see now is that Heartland ran it and it’s losing the support of the moderates, the mainstream and the faint of heart. Heartland needs to stay with the mainstream while others fling the dung. That was their mistake. Ads like these should be run by those on the fringes who can afford the fire and the abuse…someone like me! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Tucci78
Your rants are not worthy of discussion, but I will simply say that between fanatics of various stripes (you can include yourself in that reference) there are many thoughtful, reasonable people of good will. No serious person is going to pay attention to your kind of inflammatory diatribe. It may make you feel good but it has no chance at rational persuasion.
[SNIP: Tone it down. Personal attacks on other commenters is over the line, as is the K-Y reference. -REP]
Doug Proctor says:
“The Heartland equated various types of killers to warmists.”
I personally view that as absolutely legitimate, and I cannot understand why you don’t. The demonization of “carbon” and the misuse of food for fuel has unquestionably resulted in starvation among the one-third of the global population that subsists on less than $2 a day. You don’t remember the food riots in Mexico City, Egypt, and other countries? But that’s A-OK, isn’t it, because the same people who agree with Ted Kazynski are pushing those same starvation policies. Alarmists make the Unabomber look like a piker.
Why do you save your bile for a really good organization that simply did something you don’t agree with? I personally see no moral difference between Kazynski and the alarmist crowd. None at all. They are going ballistic over this for one reason: because the truth hurts.
The question is, why does that same truth cause folks like you to endlessly demonize a small organization that is doing so much good? And why are you so totally unforgiving? Makes me wonder where you’re coming from.
There is nothing for HI to ‘apologize’ for, and even if they did, people like you wouuldn’t let go, you would just alter your mode of attack. This was one billboard on one road. It was promptly taken down per request. But you are still ranting on about it three days later — while giving the alarmist crowd a free pass for doing much worse.
There are some people who want a scorched earth form of rhetoric to separate “true believers” (of whatever ilk) from all possible forms of “coalition building” (intellectually, politically, economically etc.). Let’s make the us-vs-them as harsh and catastrophic as possible, find the “real men” (and women) among the skeptics who will fight the One True War, etc.
What I have been trying to say is that if you take the rhetoric and name-calling to such extremes (even when the “other side” has done it more or sooner) then you immediately start to alienate many possible allies who might otherwise be receptive to your information and arguments. As for Heartland, considering all the vile names they have been called over the years, I completely sympathize with their desire to strike back. However, if they wanted to be respected as any purveyor of scientific information to the public, this billboard affair is probably a set-back to that effort. Given the double-standards in the media and politics, there is no latitude or forgiveness for this kind of thing unless you are one of the politically correct darlings. This is attention getting but does it earn them intellectual or scientific respect from anyone?
Skiphil,
So, I suppose you’ve never done anything that didn’t look so smart in retrospect?
How about some support for the folks on your side? They could use it, you know.
Smokey says to Skiphil,
May 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm: How about some support for the folks on your side? They could use it, you know.
You disagree with me, too, quite strongly. I don’t support the our side/their side situation, though I am a skeptic and the “others” are warmists. I have no “side”, I have my beliefs, in the case of CAGW, from technical considerations, and in the case of these Heartland ads, from philosophical, social and moral ones. Flinging mud is not acceptable in principle, while also not useful except for prolonging inter-tribal disputes or vendettas.
If you think that the Heartland ads were appropriate expressions of your position, then stand by them. If you think that no apology is needed because the message behind the ads reflects your opinion of the warmists, then that is your right. So say so. But if you think that the message behind the ads about the moral and intellectual positions of those you disagree with does not reflect your thoughts, then you should say that, too. Unless you like to associate with the Big Boys, whether they speak for you or not.
And three days later I am still speaking about it? A) this is a time-delayed discussion, and b) in my opinion the legitimacy of the skeptical position is hurt by such juvenile activity, and the push to CO2-control is a very, very important issue of these times. I want it stopped, not helped.
Smokey, I have expressed (at various places) sympathy for what tempted Heartland to do this, even agreement that there are plenty of people on the C-AGWarmist side who have earned the guilt-by-association in one way or another. But do i need to agree that the billboard was a good idea? No, I don’t agree with that. I’m neither agreeing with those who applaud the billboard nor with those who think that Heartland should be vilified for it. I simply think it was a tactical mistake, not the best way to proceed at this time, that’s all. I don’t actually think any less of people at Heartland for it. They might even be proved right in terms of “tactics” if it has benefits such as restraining the reckless rhetoric of the “other side”…. who knows at this point? I don’t think it helps to build public pressure against C-AGW, and I don’t think it helps the “skeptic” cause more generally, but it is merely one episode and it may fade away quickly.
Doug Proctor,
You made a point of exactly what I’m arguing against:
“Flinging mud is not acceptable … except for prolonging inter-tribal disputes or vendettas.”
Attacking your own side is not helpful. The other side will do that plenty. In fact, it is their job. Let them do it.
Then readers can see both sides and make up their minds. But monkey-piling on your own team is exactly what the other side loves. You’re their new hero. It’s exactly like a lawyer agreeing with the opponent’s lawyer in court. Maybe he can do it, but it throws his client under the bus.
Do not doubt that everything and more that you can say will be written by the alarmist crowd. There is nothing new you can add. So let them do it. Enough monkey-piling.
Smokey, fyi, we cross-posted since I had not seen your 4:18 when I posted my 4:25 (I was multi-tasking while getting around to finishing my little post of 4:25). I was more commenting upon someone up-thread who vilified me as “prissy” for urging more rational communications etc. I’m not vilifying Heartland and I don’t think they have any need to apologize. I just think the billboard was not helpful and I’m glad it was taken down. The hypocrisies of the C-AGW alarmists who say the same and worse about “us” every day are of course extensive and beyond account.
Responding to Phil Jourdan who wrote here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-978840
“If you are going to imitate what the shysters do, then you have lost and they have won. It is best if they do what they are doing. Admit their mistake (shysters never do), and move on.”
He he still people are not getting it. The “shysters” already won the PR battle because of their aggressive tactics. Skeptics go into meltdown over billboard and you admonish me over it.
Good grief!
It was only when I came here is when see this absurd overblown complaint about a few billboards that I even knew about the existence of the boards that were placed in a single city.
LOLOLOLOLOL……….
We are winning the SCIENCE battle but still may lose the war because we are a bunch of little girly girls who scream over a slightly tainted message. That is the big secret to the progressives success in taking over most of the media, the Universities, schools and global warming propaganda.
We have a few blogs, think tanks, forums and little else. But Heartland dared to push the envelope to make a point that apparently eluded many here and elsewhere. Then get the absurd overreaction and now they are hurt and will probably stop promoting conferences for climate skeptics.
So once again the alarmist propagandists wins again, courtesy of narrow minded skeptics who help shoot down a small think tank.
It is not a good idea to be mister prim and proper while the house is burning down around you.
Skiphil,
Thank you for making that clear.
At 4:43 PM on 7 May, Doug Proctor posts:
Okay, that’s just plain contemptible.
Not just the “I have my beliefs” bit (you believe, do you? Egad!), but also the wonderful weaseling about not having any “side” in this contention. Were I religious, I’d go all Revelation 3:16 on your sorry tochus (“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth”), but I’m a pretty well-settled atheist, so I guess I’ll just quote Heinlein:
…and leave you to the damnation for which your “beliefs” have fitted you.
You stay all polite and upstanding and sniff superciliously about “Flinging mud” while the other side destroys the industrial economy upon which you and all those dear to you depend upon for your survival.
Maybe you haven’t noticed it yet, but the “side” over there under the Watermelon-green banner is flinging a helluva lot more than “mud” at us men of good will and sound scientific principle.
REP obliterates my post at 5:32 PM and weasels:
Like las warmistas aren’t pounding away at plans to screw our children and succeeding generations by depriving them – as well as us – of the access to energy we require to maintain and grow our industrial civilization?
Or is it simply that they’re not even being kind enough to make use of a lubricant?
[REPLY: You go all Sicilian Vespers in a post and then complain when it gets snipped? This is a family blog. Think of the children. -REP]
Richard-
Please forgive the protracted absence/
“In my opinion our best tactic is to unite around exposing the so-called ‘science’. This has been working, and it ended political justification for the scare in Copenhagen some years ago. So, governments’ funding of the scare can be expected to dwindle as time goes by. Indeed, cuts in subsidies for ‘renewables’ are already resulting in bankruptcies of wind and solar companies.”
A valid point, and see you have read Charles Fair as well. Well done sir!
The difficulty of the position comes from the fact that arguing science alone works best with rational people. In that arena the anti-AGW crowd is winning, and calling people naughty names is, as you point out, ineffective at best.
The difficulty is with the non-rational, those involved in “faith-based” science. A PhD said it, it sounds plausible, and it scares the dickens out of all too many. It is the polar opposite of the group being addressed by scientific argument. This non-rational crew is large, committed, and not prone to cure by reason or evidence. It’s the reason I almost advised Anthony to make up a bug-out bag after some of the more recent revelations – assuming (being in CA with the possibility of earthquake) .he hasn’t already.
One obvious question is, “why bother?” If it is that off the wall, let the truth take care of itself.
I am not so sure. Mobs can be useful to those who control them.
Having talked all around the subject, it seems sensible to end by saying this is not as easy as it appears. Name-calling alienates one group, not pointing things out in an “in your face” style loses the other. If the problem of extremist camp is not addressed in some effective way, there is, in my opinion, the possibility winning the debate will be irrelevant or worse.
With Respect, Andre
REP writes:
You’re goddam right I do. When the Environmental Protection Racket (or is that “Agency”? You can’t tell the difference any more…) sends around armed goons to shut down productive enterprise on the orders of our Marxist Mystery Mulignane, they sure as hell aren’t playing politely or relying on sweet reason to get their thuggish way.
Dica se “ciciri,” ragazzo.
[REPLY: Ragazzo? Sheesh, I haven’t been called that in about fifty years! -REP]