Day 332: Insufficient Interpellation

As it turns out, there does not seem to be a sufficient amount of capitalist indoctrination and propaganda present in the European education system. Read this article (“Europe’s Philosophy of Failure”) to find out why and what the consequences of this terrifying status quo are/may be in the future.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095&page=0

BTW: I found the link to this article on the website of The Chronicle of Higher Education (some of you may appreciate the irony here).

I also quickly want to urge people who are interested in environmental issues and environmental policy to visit Climate Debate Daily, a relatively new and well-organized site (that is also “fair and balanced”–he, he). You can find the link to it listed in my blogroll.

Day 249: Sleepless in Chicago

Damn, I’m tired. Had to pull an all-nighter to catch up on writing, grading and applications. Am exhausted. Will go to the Überstein Hofbräuhaus with a friend later tonight to unwind. Yes, that’s right! Überstein. Seems appropriate: I’m über-tired and definitely have an itch for stress-escapism by getting über-drunk (which, considering the amount of work that needs to get done tomorrow, is not a possbility).

Be that as it may, contrary to what Robert Frost may claim, fall (not spring) seems to be the mischief in me: there is a job opening at Regent University. Do you think I should apply? There certainly is lots of “über” at that place (not the good kind, though). I wonder if I can put a notion in their heads. But, über-Pat probably, “moves in darkness as it seems to me // Not of woods only and the shade of trees. // He will not go behind his father’s saying…”

???

Day 210: Rambo 4 Trailer

Cerebraljetsam is experiencing cerebral overload.

too many insults

too many cynical jokes

too much disappointment

too many (frankly way too obvious, one would think) points of critique

here the trailer:

The trailer above might not work any more (copyright). If so, try this one instead:

Day 122: The Weekend

 

Dear all,

yes, I still do not have internet in my new place but that should happen by the 20th (or so ATT claims at this point). Hence my blogging-efforts remain somewhat sporadic in nature. I am still trying to finish Falling Man. This is quite embarrassing, since I have been reading the book for the last week. The annoying thing is that I am still distracted by moving-related things (such as putting together my bed, which I finally did this morning). However, I have now set up my desk and hope to get back into a more rigorous study and writing habit. In addition to the current chapter and a conference paper I will have to complete the first of a series of entries I am writing for an encyclopedia on American literature that will be published next year. The entry I am working on right now is on Dos Passos’ USA trilogy, which I should re-read again for the sake of double-checking the accuracy of the entry but the essay is due June 25 and finding the time to read DosPassos’ 1300-page colossus next to all the other stuff I have to do might be hard (also, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues I am working on at present, which makes the endeavor not a lot easier). We’ll see how far I get.

Quick recap of the weekend:

I fell on my inline skates in a quite embarrassing manner trying to make my way back to my apartment at 1:30 in the morning on Sunday–upside: it wasn’t too bad (only a few bruises) and I was able to provide some comical relief for the masses on their way home from the bars in my neighborhood.

I saw a Japanese movie called Paprika, which reminded me in interesting ways of Cayce Pollard in Gibson’s Pattern Recognition (even though the plot of the film is certainly not too complicated and in no way up to par with the novel–i.e. this is more a statement about my personal relation to the strong-female-cyberpunk-heroine, which, I must say, I am inreasingly realize is quite sexy [ontologically, politically and, well, visually]–I feel compelled to add here, however, that I certainly do not mean this in a weird Hentai way–yes, the movie is anime, but that is not the kind of sexy I am talking about–I am mostly talking about Cayce Pollard here–if one stops reading the novel at page 200, that is–but that is an entirely different discussion).

Also: has anyone noticed that weird rhetorical move Republicans currently are so fond of again in recent debates that accuses Democratic plans for health care reform and global trade of bringing us “dangerously close to socialism?” Seems like along with the memory of Reagan (who is frequently invoked as a desperate attempt to revive the conservative values of the GOP) the Republicans try to revive Cold War logic and anti-communism as a dominant cultural fear in the US, which, so they seem to hope, creates a renewed need for conservative morality and (economic) politics. Not only is this Democrats=socialists argument ridiculously desperate in nature but it is also a sad sign of how politically and philosophically uneducated presidential candidates are (or how uneducated they assume the public is). Seriously: the relationship between Democrats and socialism in regards to economic principles is like the relationship between deciding to drag a little less dirt into your apartment and a five-person, deep, spring-cleaning of the place.

***EDIT: I forgot: I also witnessed this year’s “World Naked Bike Ride Chicago.” Hundreds of people gathered, got naked and rode their bikes through Chicago in order to protest US dependency on oil, as well as promote a “healthy body image.” I am not sure how successful the whole thing was regarding both of its intended goals but it was certainly a sight to see. For more info visit their website.

Day 105: Season Finale of Lost et al.

 

So the third season of Lost is over. We had good fun with John Locke becoming more and more, well, Lockeian (see Two Treatises of Government). That guy knows how to labor the land! (Locke joke? Anyone? Well, ok then–nevermind). Also we were able to further practice our fear of Others and exercise our conviction that the Western subjects we identify with are the good guys. Hey, after all the most romantic moment in the finale was presented as the Korean fisherman’s ability to speak English! Assimilation is just too cute (and apparently necessary in order to save a marriage, be considered a hero and, well, generally to get laid). Finally we managed to push the Asian subject into its intended role as part of the model minority. Wohoo! And the general fear of Others and Western logocentrism: important ideological practice in times of terrorism, no? It just provides us with a feeling of safety when we can divide the world into a binary system of negative oppositions. Us good. Others bad. Nice.

But let’s talk about the season finale. First: pacing. It was too rushed. Since they seemingly had left so many plot strings open for the finale they really had to rush through all of them to get to this season’s cliffhanger. Slightly reminded me of the remake of the classic film Long Hot Summer (the original stars a young Paul Newman, Ava Gardner and Orson Welles) starring Don Johnson and Cybil Shepherd, which tried to complicate the plot of the original movie (the original script was written by William Faulkner, immediately telling you how necessary a further complication was), ran out of time toward the end of the movie and actually forgot to pick up some plot strings. Makes for one of the funniest endings in film history. You have scenes of a village mob running excitedly into the woods in order to …well, we don’t really know. They forgot to get back to that. Anyway, back to Lost. Badly paced. We did not even have time to do what is expected from us as gullible viewers, such as being outraged that three people were shot. I was just trying to muster up some outrage to get into the spirit of the show (after obviously knowing that they were not dead) and they just ruined it by telling me the shooting was fake. Give me more time to buy into this stuff! This fast-paced stuff was almost ironically Brechtian in its inability to provide me with some much desired mechanism for escaping the real world. Same thing with Locke’s suicidal thoughts. Lasted about 5 seconds. Not even enough for me to say the stereotypical things that are expected of me. I only got to: “oh no, not John, he…”–and the suicidal thing was already over. Nice resolution here, though, via bringing back Walt. Definitely made me smile. Also remarkable in this respect: two black characters that had not even been in a single shot for the entire season had multiple lines in the finale. Seems like they are beginning to realize that killing off all the black people was a little strange (to put it mildly). My favority suspension-of-disbelief-enjoyment moment: Hurly’s rescue. Aah, good old cheering-for-the-underdog satisfaction.

But about the most important aspect: the ending. We have had three seasons of flashback narrative and we have three seasons to go until the end of the show. Will those three be flash-forward narrative? And: was there anyone who liked the flash-forward? Don’t really think so. It tends to appear as a move that limits the previous open-endedness and unpredictability of the show in dramatic ways. But then again, the future, as opposed to the past, is not necessarily static–meaning, we know things may change (see Desmond’s personal struggle). The thing that interests me, however, is the fact that people really hated the future narrative. It is not because it was negative. There were a lot of negative past narratives in the show. It is because it is a determinism arising out of the positing of a(negative) teleology, which again tells me something I have mentioned before about the ways in which we are currently willing to imagine potentiality. Rather than turning toward the future we tend to locate potentiality and jouissance in the past, an affective structure mediated through nostalgia that manifests itself in the escapist fantasies perpetuated by Lost. It is this play on our present psychological struggles surrounding the ways in which we articulate our existence to the changed structural temporality of our global environment (especially in a post-9/11 world) together with the introduction of a new Other that makes me quite excited about season four (and this is also the thing that makes the show for me a valuable object of study–i.e. a mediation of the current US psyche in a post-9/11 global situation). But this is all obviously just the beginning of a discussion I would very much like to continue. So write me your thoughts on Lost and on the finale in particular, especially those that deal with the show’s connection to contemporary forms of anxiety and desiring structures.

Oh: and, of course, send me some possible answers to these important questions:

Will Jack be able to redeem himself and change the future, which seems to be an effect of his tragic decision to make the call?

Is Charlie truly dead?

Kate or Juliette? (I am still very much torn here.)

What’s up with Jacob (and the re-appearance of Walt, for that matter)?

Who is (will/might be) in the coffin?

Day 94: Live Free or Die Hard

 

Hi Folks,

I was a bad blogger over the weekend, so here an update on recent events:

1. Friday was “Looptopia” in Chicago, an all-night arts festival with a multitude of events all throughout the Loop. After initially being really excited about this I went out to look at stuff and was quite disappointed to find out that the organizers had apparently not expected more than five people to show up, much less over a hundred thousand. All venues were overcrowded, the Cultural Center even closed at some point due to what the police in certainly overdramatic terms described as the potential collapse of the building due to the mass of people inside. My personal goal was to survive the night and participate in the 6 a.m. bocchia tournament in the park, but somehow the police did not really understand that this event was supposed to get people to stick around until dawn (for the big sunrise celebration). Hence, after being told by the police multiple times that “it’s 2:30 in the morning–go home for crying out loud” I was rather disillusioned and ended my night there. Funny contradiction in the whole event: people were supposed to stay until 6, or 7 in the morning, but after about 2 a.m. there was really no place for people to go, so not surprisingly the masses took to the street and I think we were about one more 40 oz bottle of Steel Reserve away from a nice anarchic riot. But, alas, the whole thing just dispersed after a few hours of yelling, smashing bottles etc. Good organizing! I am pretty sure what was supposed to be an annual event from now on will not be back next year. Too bad–did not see any of the performances I was actually excited about. The great festival of arts ended up more of an excercise in the carnivalesque, celebrating the ability to drink in the streets. Quite sad.

2. I already wrote about this, but again: 28 Weeks Later is truly worth seeing. In the film US military cannot restore order to and protect London, now called “the Green Zone.” Need I say more?

3. I also saw the trailer for the new Die Hard movie: Live Free or Die Hard. No, I am not kidding. That’s what it is called. Think 300 was bad in respect to nationalist and militaristic propaganda? You ain’t seen nothing yet. Bruce Willis is the only celebrity born in my small hometown and I am sure I am speaking in the name of all those living there when I say: Bruce, you have made a lot of shite movies, but after this one, don’t you dare ever visit us again. If need be, I will fight you abroad, so that my home is safe. Say, pre-emptive bare-knuckle fight here in Chicago sometime in July? Send me an e-mail. I have to protect my hometown, after all. (you cannot tell, but I am writing this as I am standing on top of a trashed car waving the flag of my hometown–you dumbass). Your father was in the military, man–and you still do not understand that many American soldiers and many, many more Iraqis “die hard” in a war that does not makes us able to “live any more freely? (whatever the hell that means for you people)” It’s not, either/or, as suggested by the title of your movie. It’s both. Inevitably. You dumbass. In fact, I now officially prefer Ashton Kutcher to you. There, I said it.

Day 28/29: 300

Last night I went to the midnight premiere of 300. I had been looking forward to this for quite a while, as I really enjoy Frank Miller’s work and, quite frankly, loved the way Zack Snyder visually reinterpreted Romero’s classic Dawn of the Dead. These two elements combined should be good, I thought.

I was not disappointed. Visually the film is absolutely stunning and unlike anything I have ever seen. Justin: we need to go see this thing in the IMAX. I was aware of the fact that Snyder arranged the film as a frame-by-frame adaptation of Miller’s graphic novel, but I did not expect the amount of dedication to visually representing the original. The entire film truly resembles in its construction more the style of a graphic novel than of a conventional movie, pausing frequently to emphasize still images/shots that in an almost painterly fashion represent the visually most impressive frames from the graphic novel. In this respect the film truly caters primarily to the interests of the fans of the comic book, creating quite frequent applause for its interpretation of famous images from the book.

Here an example:

In this shot you will see the camery slowly panning back, the motion slowing down until it finally stops, freezing the shot at the moment of it visual climax, the characters posing as in classical paintings (throughout the entire movie reminiscent of, say, Briullov)  having reached the moment at which it perfectly corresponds to the image in the book. These moments in the movie work quite well for me in this genre as it combines beautiful cinematography with Miller’s gritty graphic-novel style of almost violently hammering powerful images into your brain.

Zack Snyder hired comic book artists to in fact draw elements of the movie, such as the (quite generous amount of) blood you see flying about. The cinematography is in part done by the people that also did Sin City, which was another example of one of the few successful filmic engagements with the graphic novel genre. So, as I said, visually the film is nothing less than spectacular–here a few more examples:

After I have been so explicitly stressing the fact the I was impressed by the movie mainly on a visual level, you have probably been expecting the next part of this post: the characters as well as the way the plot is being presented is absolute shite. More than that, I find it quite problematically un-self-conscious in its engagement with a quite frankly at times inflammatory subject matter. First, however the characters: well, there really are none except for a rather one-dinemsional King Leonidas, a slimy politician and a massive assortment of purely visually interesting characters (if you wanna see a bunch of really good, half-naked male bodies, this may in fact be a good movie for you–in addition to that: masculinity galore! the voices in the crowd–80% male 20-30 year-olds–must have dropped an octave after the movie–the ultra-macho, “we are the toughest and baddest soldiers in the world” crap really seemed to appeal to the glands and crotchal area of this audience–lots of manly grunting and repeating of macho scenes after the movie–I actually observed one guy whose chest had expanded so much with his newfound machismo and willingness to die for freedom that he could not fit through the door of the movie theater any more). So, my point is: lots of people, not many interesting characters: here the film actually managed to be more one-dimensional than the comic book.

Furthermore the whole Greek and Western democracy vs. Persian tyranny. Persians are evil because they are: not democratic, do not respect women, are cowards who do not fight properly, hold slaves, are perverts who pierce their faces and watch loose women belly-dance, wear effeminite jewelry and are imperialists. You can see how this might be a problem. Opposed to this is Greek democracy, masculinity, strength, courage, freedom, respecting women (well, mainly they are respected, since, as the Queen proclaims herself, they are the only women who give birth to real men–not quite what you would call liberated women, thus) etc. To this mix the movie adds phrases such as “freedom is not free,” which leave more than just a bad aftertaste in your mouth regarding current propaganda. In a way the whole movie can be construed as a “support our troops” argument, as if it was the fault of the democratic house and senate and not of the leaders of this country that our troops have insufficient support in a war they should not be in. Be that as it may, the movie does indeed what I suspected it might do (as I mentioned in a earlier post). Sadly, the movie could easily, with just a few small perspective shifts, have been made into a progressive critique of imperialism and into an argument for the need to rescue democracy and freedom by likening the US more to the imperialist power of Xerxes (hence making the Persian empire appear not opposed to, but similar to current US imperialism [“we accept your independence, you just must kneel before us”], deflating the opposition to a historical problem of the evil of imperialism, not as the evil of Persia/Iran) than to the Spartans.  As it is the association runs clearly along the lines of Sparta-US vs. Persia-Iran/Middle East–quite sad, given what could have been done with this (i.e. a more nuanced definition of democracy, as Xerxes offers Leonidas the function within a republic, which stands opposed to true democracy–it is precisely this function of nations in a global imperialist republic that could have been so powerfully made into an analogy for US imperial rule).

Alas, this did not happen and so I was left wishing I could just turn of my brain, forget about the political problems the movie was simply too lazy to take into account and enjoy the pictures. Sadly, I do not think anyone can do that and, judging from the behavior of the crowd after the end of the movie, sadly most people seemed to have eaten up the US-Sparta interpretation of the issue that perpetuates the de-historicized and uncritical engagement with the concept of democracy as just as an empty signifier in an ideological machine.

***EDIT: if you would like to save some money, here the basic plot of the entire thing in two short and free trailers–again, as said before, note the use of NIN (may be the best thing about the trailers):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uhi5x7V3WXE

and the adult-rated, longer version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28IjXoTP4yg&NR

BTW: note also the anti-Iranian sentiments in the comment section, which also seems to indicate a general inability to distinguish between Persian and Arab.

On a different note, in the second trailer you will also see an image of Snyder’s next project, the film version of Alan Moore’s Watchmen I wrote about a while ago. There are already some pictures of Rorschach roaming the www.

***

Day 10: Where’s My Head At?

I am sure some of you know this already and that most of you will tell me not to be surprised at the outcome of this, but I’ll do this anyway: let’s take a look at Brangelina’s politics. Brad has just reaped lots of politically correct shoulder-patting for Babel, which tried to represent a globalized planet’s cultural/communicative problems and succeeded in doing so in a manner almost as intelligent as Crash’s “useful” insights into the problem of US racism (i.e. a ridiculous liberal cop-out). He has also been following Angelina around and joined her in her attempt to use her cultural capital to make the world a better place, draw attention to humanitarian projects (e.g. Angelina’s function as UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, working primarily in Africa and South-East Asia). They are both trying to show the world how politically active they are and I do, in fact, generally respect them for the humanitarian work they are doing. Maybe, however, I should not have assumed that it is in fact ideologically motivated (that it actually has a foundation that arises out of a desire for actual social critique), since the latest film project of the couple contradicts pretty much all of their supposed humanitarian ideology and reveals it all as nothing more than a series of PR stunts without any substantial underlying conviction.

Brangelina is currently filming an adaptation of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, which will be released in 2008 (production photo above). ATLAS SHRUGGED! Are you kidding me? How is it possible to act as though you in fact care about the humanitarian plight in Africa, South East Asia, pretend to be interested in resolving it by acting as UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, and then take a role in the adaptation of anything by Ayn Rand? Just this morning I listened to the Thom Hartman program on Air American Radio who talked to a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (aynrand.org). This good man presented a typically Ayn Rand-ian, objectivist, individualist, i.e. radical egotistical, free-market argument about the dangers of governmental regulations on pharmacetutical patents sold on a free-market to African and South-East Asian countries. According to him, we are making a good product and we should be able to sell it as expensively as we see fit and if some countries cannot afford it, well…bad luck for them.  “You just cannot punish us and our ingenuity,” so his argument, “just because some countries are not economically competitive.” In other words, our individual economic rewards for our great work trump their basic humnitarian needs–it is unreasonable to expect us to make less profit to help people and it sure as hell is not our duty to do so.

How can you star in a movie about a novel that logically contradicts everything you say you stand for? How can you further promote a book written by a “philosopher” who has become the favorite writer of egotistical and radical individualist US capitalism, as well as the model for contemporary anti-humanitarian, anti-social (justice) “theory” that allows for the absorption of free-market ideology into the social fabric, creating a vision of a society free from any of the values that traditionally used to define the very concept of a society. Well, in a way it makes sense for Brangelina: if you support Rand’s idea that government protection (or you may call it “regulation”…oooh–evil word!) is a bad thing (see Reagan and the X Files crap on the idea that a government is a bad thing), there is more room to solve problems privately. And this is exactly where Brangelina can step in! Hey, Brangelina, can you also help me privatize my health care and social security system?? Aaaah, the freedom of being a special, unique snowflake. If the effects of Ayn Rand’s philosophy need to be visually represented at all, I have to say that we already have that film. It is called American Psycho. Even better than that, read Ellis’ novel, which precisely illustrates the social results of objectivism.

I will have to stop here, as my notebook might get damaged by me taking out my anger on its keyboard. I just cannot believe that a) people LOVE Ayn Rand to the extent that we actually witness in the US at this point and b) that I can still be negatively surprised by the political and social hypocrisy of our Hollywood elite, which takes so much pride in selling itself as liberal and progressive. Well, liberal they are. Neoliberal, in  fact. What kind of a world do we live in where one cannot even trust Brangelina any more? Makes me sick. Guess I should do my liberal Hollywood thing now, go to Starbucks now and calm down over my triple-shot-soy-hazel-flavor-twice-steamed-latte-macchiato and learn more about the state of the world and how we can all do our part to make it better by reading the insight number 132 printed on the side of the cup.

for this visit: http://www.starbucks.com/retail/thewayiseeit_default.asp

Day 7: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes

“Who watches the Watchmen?”

As a potential military conflict with Iran nears, as I am listening to Bush’s latest reasons for why Iran is becoming increasingly dangerous, as political scientists have moved the Doomsday Clock one minute ahead, I cannot help but feel like the dialectic is indeed crumbling beneath our feet and we are finding ourselves in a regressive historical development Hegel would have described as a historical tragedy (since it is to an extent repetitive). I am thus currently re-reading Alan Moore’s Watchmen, a fantastic graphic novel describing Reagan era US and world politics, social sentiment, etc. If you have not read it, do so as soon as you can. Especially in this moment where the threat of chaos and disorder results in an increasing turn toward authoritarian thinking and structures, one of Watchmen‘s central characters called Rorschach could not appear more timely and poignant.

I came across one quote that seemed almost too ironically perfect while listening to Bush go on an on about the need to defend freedom, democracy and all those other words with purely ideological connotations:

“It is the oldest ironies that are still the most satisfying: man, when preparing for a bloody war, will orate loudly and most eloquently in the name of peace.”

Just thought this was quite fitting (well, with the exception of the “eloquently” part, maybe). There is another interesting relation between Watchmen and the present political climate I would like to point out. The graphic novel is currently being filmed by Zack Snyder (without the consent of Alan Moore, of course, as was the case with V for Vendetta, From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, etc.). Zack Snyder’s latest film 300 will shortly be released and is a page-by-page adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel. While I admire Frank Miller’s work and did not even mind the film version of Sin City, I have to ask myself if making a probably very popular (first wide-release IMAX movie of 2007) movie version of Miller’s interpretation of the battle of Thermopylae between king Leonidas I of Sparta and king Xerxes I of Persia told from Leonidas’ perspective (which as a theme already occurred in Vol.3 of the Sin City series) may not degrade the film at least in part to a work of anti-Iranian propaganda, fuelling the sentiment of perceiving Iran/Persia as a historically warmongering empire.

Gotta keep watching the political and cultural watchmen!

Day 6: those who laugh last usually are the slowest thinkers

Yesterday night I had made plans to post about Marcuse and individualism today, including some fantastic quotes I just came across while re-reading Watchmen. Then, I happened to catch the ending of last night’s Daily Show, tuning in just in time to hear, “… from the Heritage Foundation, Christopher C. Horner. His latest book is…” Naturally, upon hearing the words “Heritage Foundation” and “book” in the same sentence I had to laugh (scared laughter, but laughter nonetheless). Turns out this nice gentleman proceeded to push his book (picture above) that argues that gobal warming, etc. is singularly an invention of the left and a means of anti-capitalist propaganda. He then smugly went on to mock John Steward, the German Green Party, Al Gore’s environmentalist efforts, etc. That [expletive deleted] did indeed have the last laugh on the show, but see the title of today’s post. Why this bugs me so much? Why I don’t just forget about this clearly demented jerk? Well, for one because he has millions and millions of dollars backing him in form of a right-wing think tank, which lobbies this government, as well as puts lots of cash into spreading this nonsense. Not possible that people actually take this seriously, you say? Well, check today’s amazon.com rankings and you will see that the book is ranked number 33 (!!!) on their list of most sold books.

So, whatever you do, DO NOT LET ANYONE BUY THIS BOOK!

Ok, one could say, “well, dear blogger, you are giving him publicity.” Granted, this is to an extent true, but I would like this post to engage not in the discussion about the existence, or nonexistence of global warming (I think we are all aware of the facts by now), but rather to engage in a discussion about this strategy of the right to link environmentalism and the ecological limitations it allegedly imposes upon production to socialism/communism (the precise terminology used by Horner last night, in order to cash in on the still powerful negative stigma attached to these terms in the US), hence to focus the primary discussion on how idiotic this logic truly is.

Here some excerpts from the intro to the book:

“For decades, environmentalism has been the Left’s best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It’s for Mother Earth! It’s for the children! It’s for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they’ve trumped up haven’t been large enough to justify the lifestyle restrictions they want to impose. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only “global governance” (Jacques Chirac’s words) can tackle such problems.

Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left’s manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes–and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that “global warming” is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It’s the ideal scare campaign for those who hate capitalism and love big government. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could “solve” it. According to the logic of the greens’ own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of big government.

Horner (an attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) reveals the full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today’s environmentalists, dubbing them “green on the outside, red to the core.” He details how they use strong-arm legal tactics–and worse–against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examining the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it. He exposes the lies that the environmental lobby routinely tells to make its case; the ways in which it is trying to impose initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol on an unwilling American public; and much more–including the green lobby’s favorite politicians (John Kerry, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and others).

It’s time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy.”

The elements that I “enjoy” the most here are the embedding of “anti-American” (always a good way to strongarm people ideologically these days), the logical conclusion that this all is a threat to humans and that the logic of capitalism in itself is humanist, the assumption that governmental control is actually growing, the slogan “green on the outside, red to the core,” as well as the general neoliberal struggle against any form of governmental regulation, assuming here that it must result in the stunting of inivation and production (sure, since environmental regulations have always held back technology and innovation–rejecting them is indeed a great way to remain efficient and e.g. continue to build cars that need 4-Liter engines to produce 75 horsepowers).

I would also like to provide you with some info on the publisher of the book, Regnery Publishing. They are a press located in Washington D.C., exclusively publishing conservative books, articulating its role ideologically in opposition to the “New York mainstream publishers” (because apparently liberal thinking is the mainstream in the US–or maybe because simple mainstream neoliberalism is lacking the “right” touch). They are the publisher of e.g. the “Politically Incorrect Guide to” series, which has as its mission to challenge what they perceive as the dominance of liberal ideology in US culture. Oh, and by the way, Regnery is also the publisher of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry–remember that one (in fact a #1 New York Times bestseller!)?

I thus feel compelled to revoke my previous appeal and voice a new one:

whatever you do, DO NOT LET ANYONE BUY A BOOK PUBLISHED BY REGNERY!

Sorry Regnery, but if you should ever be short on cash, I am sure you can borrow some from your buddies at the Heritage Foundation.

Now I would love to hear what you think about this (ideo)logical clusterfuck of a book described above.