Dear Ben Stein,
I had the misfortune of seeing your "documentary" Expelled on opening day at the Leow's theater in Methuen, MA. Let me state from the outset that your film was one of the worst I've ever sat through. The constant cutting from interview segments to snippets of the holocaust, the construction of the Berlin Wall, 1950's educational film footage, science fiction movies etc. was not just annoying, it was childish. I expect such production techniques from a Saturday morning children's program, not a documentary claiming to take on the corrupt scientific establishment.
The factual errors in your film are many. They go to the very heart of your argument and are well documented. This isn't a matter of conflicting opinion, you are lying to people. Enough has been said about Expelled already, I won't belabor the point by reciting the myriad of falsehoods you foist on an American movie-going public that is, sadly, scientifically illiterate. The most damning aspect of your film is also the most absurd, the belief that acceptance of the scientific truth of evolution lead to the rise of fascism and the holocaust. Implicit in all of this of course is that, while you claim the conflict between "Darwinism" and "Intelligent Design" is purely about science, you make the case throughout the film that evolution is a denial of God, and pure empirical science a rejection of religion. Sadly, this isn't an original argument. Dinesh D'souza constantly makes this "Atheism leads Nazi's, Communism etc."argument, though admittedly in a more eloquent fashion. I can think of no assertion more intellectually or morally bankrupt.
What more can I say Mr. Stein? You lie, fabricate, misquote and mislead the viewer throughout your film. You deceived many of the credible scientists appearing in your film in order to secure their interviews. You stole sophisticated animation depicting cell biology. You used at least 2 pieces of copyrighted music for your film without permission.You staged the speaking event at the opening of your film and the incident where you were "thrown out" of the Smithsonian. I expected a documentary, I got science fiction. The Blair Witch Project was a more honest (and better made) film than Expelled.
I would ask for a refund,but given your demonstrated dishonesty, you'd probably claim you didn't make the film.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
I can't believe I paid money to see that...
OK...so I saw Expelled today. I'm still trying to digest it. I don't think I've ever been so offended by a movie before. I'm not ready to write a critique yet but suffice it to say that Expelled is the biggest piece of shit I've ever had to sit through. More later ,but trust me, It's worse that I thought it would be.
Monday, April 14, 2008
FAUX weather, just as bad as FAUX news.
Just when you thought it was safe to watch the weather report on your LOCAL station, it becomes clear that the "foxifacation" of news even extends to the weather. Check out Kevin Lemanowicz's blog on MyFoxBoston. Now, as we all know, weather and climate are two very different things. When meteorologists start opining on climatology, hold on to your hats. Lets hit just a couple of the flaws in poor Kevin's argument. First, Kevin seems to be unsure if a. climate change is happening and b. if human activity is causing it. Well it's been fairly well established that a. the climate is changing in ways unprecedented during the current geological age and that b. human generated Green House Gases are the cause. Kevin would do well to visit our friends at Real Climate or peruse the IPCC 4th assessment report.
Kevin also seems in a tizzy about the "disrespect"sic of Dr. Bill Gray, a respected hurricane forecaster who seems not to mind being in over his head on climate change. Dr.Gray likes to snipe from the stands apparently and in my pinion, got exactly what he deserved. Dr.Gray is no longer content with hurricane forecasting and likes to dabble in global warming denial. Dr.Gray is free, as is any other scientists in the contrarian camp, to submit his ideas to peer reviewed journals. He, like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, are free to submit their earth shattering research proving global warming to be a sham. The only problem is, they don't.
The arguments over climate change and hurricane activity are pretty heated and this seems to be one of the areas where there is genuine debate and disagreement. Does this debate have anything to do with the basic, factual premise that the earth is warming because of our GHG emissions? In a word, no.
As for arguments that climate models are inadequate, this article on realclimate.org seems to address that fallacy. The fact is,the more research we do, the clearer it becomes that climate models are pretty accurate.
Kevin Lemanowicz's real crime here isn't that he has an opinion, or even a poorly informed one. The problem is that he's a respected public figure with scientific credentials who is misleading the public. By providing only his opinion, and short video snippet from a conference without explaining the context or providing an evenhanded treatment of this complex subject, Mr Lemanowicz mislead the public and gave then a poorly written, 4th grade level commentary. At a minimum, Mr Lemanowicz should have provided a link to some objective, primary source material (as I have here).
Kevin also seems in a tizzy about the "disrespect"sic of Dr. Bill Gray, a respected hurricane forecaster who seems not to mind being in over his head on climate change. Dr.Gray likes to snipe from the stands apparently and in my pinion, got exactly what he deserved. Dr.Gray is no longer content with hurricane forecasting and likes to dabble in global warming denial. Dr.Gray is free, as is any other scientists in the contrarian camp, to submit his ideas to peer reviewed journals. He, like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, are free to submit their earth shattering research proving global warming to be a sham. The only problem is, they don't.
The arguments over climate change and hurricane activity are pretty heated and this seems to be one of the areas where there is genuine debate and disagreement. Does this debate have anything to do with the basic, factual premise that the earth is warming because of our GHG emissions? In a word, no.
As for arguments that climate models are inadequate, this article on realclimate.org seems to address that fallacy. The fact is,the more research we do, the clearer it becomes that climate models are pretty accurate.
Kevin Lemanowicz's real crime here isn't that he has an opinion, or even a poorly informed one. The problem is that he's a respected public figure with scientific credentials who is misleading the public. By providing only his opinion, and short video snippet from a conference without explaining the context or providing an evenhanded treatment of this complex subject, Mr Lemanowicz mislead the public and gave then a poorly written, 4th grade level commentary. At a minimum, Mr Lemanowicz should have provided a link to some objective, primary source material (as I have here).
Sunday, April 13, 2008
"Expelled" flunks out.
We will be hearing quite a bit about Ben Stein's new "documentary", Expelled this week. The controversial film opens on April 18th at selected theaters nationwide and, lucky us, one of those selected theaters is the Loews theater at the Loop in Methuen.
Now...I am loathe to talk about a film I haven't seen and given the thrashing I gave many global warming deniers who savaged An Inconvenient Truth without seeing it, I think I'm obliged to see the film before offering a critique. I hate the idea of forking over hard earned money for a propaganda piece and I'm hoping some intrepid soul will "hook me up" with a bootleg. That being said, there are resources aplenty from people in the scientific community who have seen advanced copies and the most damning reviews come from the staff at one of America's most esteemed magazines, Scientific American (S.A. is not a peer reviewed science journal but it's editors, writers and contributers are scientists and science journalists and S.A. is very highly regarded by the scientific community). The S.A. website has an entire section devoted to the film. Most damning, and revealing, is a complete, unedited discussion (mp3 format) of the film between the editorial staff and Expelled associate producer, Mark Mathis.
Since I haven't seen the film yet I won't offer any commentary on it's merits, or lack thereof. I promise a review will be forthcoming. I do want to make one point. The manufactured controversy over evolution vs creationism/intelligent design is getting far more traction that is should. If there were anything of merit to ID, any empirical evidence, anything that could be seen or observed in nature, anything that could be tested or quantified, anything you could model, ID would be given very serious attention by scientists and laypersons alike. The problem here is that ID and creationism (they really are the same thing) aren't scientific concepts. ID isn't a theory or a hypothesis, it's not supported by evidence, it doesn't adequately explain anything we observe in nature. The appearance of design isn't evidence of design. ID is merely a scientific sounding way to sneak GOD into the classroom.
One thing is clear, the theory of evolution is the only rational, scientific explanation for the rise and speciation of life on earth. Every living thing on earth, from microbes in soil to human beings, descended from simple, single celled organisms, growing in primordial ooze over 2 billion years ago. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". To claim that the universe and specifically (and especially) man, must have been designed, is an extraordinary claim, one that is not supported by anything other than human conceit and fear.
I'll have more, much more, once I've seen the film.
Now...I am loathe to talk about a film I haven't seen and given the thrashing I gave many global warming deniers who savaged An Inconvenient Truth without seeing it, I think I'm obliged to see the film before offering a critique. I hate the idea of forking over hard earned money for a propaganda piece and I'm hoping some intrepid soul will "hook me up" with a bootleg. That being said, there are resources aplenty from people in the scientific community who have seen advanced copies and the most damning reviews come from the staff at one of America's most esteemed magazines, Scientific American (S.A. is not a peer reviewed science journal but it's editors, writers and contributers are scientists and science journalists and S.A. is very highly regarded by the scientific community). The S.A. website has an entire section devoted to the film. Most damning, and revealing, is a complete, unedited discussion (mp3 format) of the film between the editorial staff and Expelled associate producer, Mark Mathis.
Since I haven't seen the film yet I won't offer any commentary on it's merits, or lack thereof. I promise a review will be forthcoming. I do want to make one point. The manufactured controversy over evolution vs creationism/intelligent design is getting far more traction that is should. If there were anything of merit to ID, any empirical evidence, anything that could be seen or observed in nature, anything that could be tested or quantified, anything you could model, ID would be given very serious attention by scientists and laypersons alike. The problem here is that ID and creationism (they really are the same thing) aren't scientific concepts. ID isn't a theory or a hypothesis, it's not supported by evidence, it doesn't adequately explain anything we observe in nature. The appearance of design isn't evidence of design. ID is merely a scientific sounding way to sneak GOD into the classroom.
One thing is clear, the theory of evolution is the only rational, scientific explanation for the rise and speciation of life on earth. Every living thing on earth, from microbes in soil to human beings, descended from simple, single celled organisms, growing in primordial ooze over 2 billion years ago. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". To claim that the universe and specifically (and especially) man, must have been designed, is an extraordinary claim, one that is not supported by anything other than human conceit and fear.
I'll have more, much more, once I've seen the film.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
More on the Environmental Bond Bill
I just received this regarding the Bond Bill from another Senior Fellow at ELP:
HI, Tennis -
Thanks for posting this! As one of the organizers of the Rally I
can only add that if 5 people contact their legislator on an
environmental issue, it's a landslide! Your call WILL make a
difference. To find out who your state Representative and
Senator are, go to
http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php and click
on "Who are my Elected Officials".
Bernie McHugh, Coordinator
Mass. Land Trust Coalition
www.MassLand.org
HI, Tennis -
Thanks for posting this! As one of the organizers of the Rally I
can only add that if 5 people contact their legislator on an
environmental issue, it's a landslide! Your call WILL make a
difference. To find out who your state Representative and
Senator are, go to
http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php and click
on "Who are my Elected Officials".
Bernie McHugh, Coordinator
Mass. Land Trust Coalition
www.MassLand.org
The Open Space Bond Bill
One of my favorite scenes from the West Wing is when president Bartlet (played brilliantly by Martin Sheen) is running for reelection and is debating his Republican opponent, a conservative, and not too bright Governor (sound familiar?). During a response to a question about taxes and government spending, the republican rails against, of course, big government. President Bartlet, during his rebuttal, rattled off the impressive list of government spending and programs that help the republicans home state of Florida (it's a lot of money). President Bartlet looks at Governor Ritchie and says, "I have just one question...Can we have it back, please?"
Regardless of your views on what the proper role of government is, or how "the taxpayer's money" should be spent, there is no arguing that government spending, when its done well, can do a lot of good. Arguably, that spending is best done at the state and local level, where government can be most effective and democratically accountable. Here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, much of our considerable spending on protecting and conserving the environment is tied to the Environmental Bond Bill (H4561). Issued every 5 years, the bond bill authorizes the funding for a host of environmental capital spending above the day to day operational spending by state agencies, much of it critically important to us here in the city of Lawrence.
The rebuilding and expansion of the Wall Experimental Station on Shattuck St. is dependent on funding from the current bond bill. The Urban Self Help program has provided nearly $2 million since 2005, those funds helped the city and local non-profits leverage over $3 million from other non-state funding sources to help Lawrence construct 2 new parks along the Spicket River and refurbish another existing park. The design and planning of the Spicket river Greenway was funded by the state Riverways Program. The Gencorp/Gateway brownfields project, the first brownfields revitalization in the U.S., would not have been possible without state funding. Even our local farmers market benefits from state Bond Bill funds. Brox Farm in Dracut, was purchased with help from the state APR Program.
With a third new park planned for the former Covanta Incinerator site on the Spicket River, planned renovations to the Haden Schofield Playstead "in the pipeline" as well as the planned for river walk on the Merrimack River a host of improvements to existing parks and playgrounds throughout the city, the importance of bond bill funds for the Urban Self Help program is obvious.
Statewide, over the next 5 years, the Bond Bill will fund recreation and parks ($630 million), land conservation ($171 million), agriculture and forestry protection ($102 million), wildlife and fisheries programs ($119 million), coastal and marine resource protection ($102 million), water quality and drinking water supply ($183 million), and pollution reduction and clean up($50 million). Over $1.6 Billion dollars of investment critical to the entire commonwealth, especially here in Lawrence.
Passage of the Environmental Bond Bill is a major focus of the environmental community and of many cities and towns throughout Massachusetts. I will join many members of conservation commissions at a rally to support the bond bill tomorrow at the State House in Boston. Conservation Commissioners, environmental activists, local government officials and non-profits will be lobbying our representatives and state senators to support passage of the bill. If you agree that this spending is important and beneficial, please call your state senator and representative, express your support for the bond bill (H4561) and ask them to vote in favor of it's passage.
Regardless of your views on what the proper role of government is, or how "the taxpayer's money" should be spent, there is no arguing that government spending, when its done well, can do a lot of good. Arguably, that spending is best done at the state and local level, where government can be most effective and democratically accountable. Here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, much of our considerable spending on protecting and conserving the environment is tied to the Environmental Bond Bill (H4561). Issued every 5 years, the bond bill authorizes the funding for a host of environmental capital spending above the day to day operational spending by state agencies, much of it critically important to us here in the city of Lawrence.
The rebuilding and expansion of the Wall Experimental Station on Shattuck St. is dependent on funding from the current bond bill. The Urban Self Help program has provided nearly $2 million since 2005, those funds helped the city and local non-profits leverage over $3 million from other non-state funding sources to help Lawrence construct 2 new parks along the Spicket River and refurbish another existing park. The design and planning of the Spicket river Greenway was funded by the state Riverways Program. The Gencorp/Gateway brownfields project, the first brownfields revitalization in the U.S., would not have been possible without state funding. Even our local farmers market benefits from state Bond Bill funds. Brox Farm in Dracut, was purchased with help from the state APR Program.
With a third new park planned for the former Covanta Incinerator site on the Spicket River, planned renovations to the Haden Schofield Playstead "in the pipeline" as well as the planned for river walk on the Merrimack River a host of improvements to existing parks and playgrounds throughout the city, the importance of bond bill funds for the Urban Self Help program is obvious.
Statewide, over the next 5 years, the Bond Bill will fund recreation and parks ($630 million), land conservation ($171 million), agriculture and forestry protection ($102 million), wildlife and fisheries programs ($119 million), coastal and marine resource protection ($102 million), water quality and drinking water supply ($183 million), and pollution reduction and clean up($50 million). Over $1.6 Billion dollars of investment critical to the entire commonwealth, especially here in Lawrence.
Passage of the Environmental Bond Bill is a major focus of the environmental community and of many cities and towns throughout Massachusetts. I will join many members of conservation commissions at a rally to support the bond bill tomorrow at the State House in Boston. Conservation Commissioners, environmental activists, local government officials and non-profits will be lobbying our representatives and state senators to support passage of the bill. If you agree that this spending is important and beneficial, please call your state senator and representative, express your support for the bond bill (H4561) and ask them to vote in favor of it's passage.
Friday, April 4, 2008
FAUX NEWS
"Real news is the news we need to have to remain free", Bill Moyers
Nobody on Hannity and Colmes batted an eye or saw the sick irony in Ann Coulter's chortling mockery of suspended Air America radio host Randi Rhodes for her catty and mildly offensive commentary referring to Geraldine Ferraro as a whore. Ann Coulter, the xenophobic, homophobic, quasi-fascist, elitist pig who called John Edwards a "faggot" (and cried censorship when she was rightly called out for it) sat there heaping scorn without anyone mentioning the immeasurable amount of vile, offensive, fear mongering, insulting filth that's poured out of the gaping maw of that wretched, anorexic harpie. The only thing to counter the orgy of Randi-bashing was Alan Colmes, the most impotent and ineffectual token liberal ever employed by right wing media.
THIS is insightful commentary during the most important election of my lifetime? THIS is what Fox News thinks is important? THIS is real news?
Fox News represents the low point in the already shallow gene pool of cable TV news programing. With the glowing exception of C-SPAN, cable offers nothing that can compete with any of the news and public affairs programming on public broadcasting. ( Since C-SPAN is operated as a non profit, independent network funded by cable and satellite networks and subscriber user fees, it has been argued that CSPAN is a form of public broadcasting, or at least cable TV's version of it) Does anyone really believe that CNN, MSNBC or Fox offers programming comparable to Bill Moyers Journal, McNiel-Leher news hour, Frontline, Washington Week, NOW? Is there ANY program on for-profit broadcast radio comparable to anything you'll hear on NPR, PRI or Pacifica Radio? (for that matter, is Bravo or A&E comparable to Masterpiece Theater or Live From the Met, is the Discovery Channel really better than NOVA or Nature ? )
During this election, at a time when the very concept of reason is under assault, when so many of our fellow citizens don't understand what it really means to be an American, we are in desperate need of what Ralph Nader called a deep, deliberative democracy.
Is such a need well served by the offerings of the cable news trinity?
Are we citizens getting REAL news?
Nobody on Hannity and Colmes batted an eye or saw the sick irony in Ann Coulter's chortling mockery of suspended Air America radio host Randi Rhodes for her catty and mildly offensive commentary referring to Geraldine Ferraro as a whore. Ann Coulter, the xenophobic, homophobic, quasi-fascist, elitist pig who called John Edwards a "faggot" (and cried censorship when she was rightly called out for it) sat there heaping scorn without anyone mentioning the immeasurable amount of vile, offensive, fear mongering, insulting filth that's poured out of the gaping maw of that wretched, anorexic harpie. The only thing to counter the orgy of Randi-bashing was Alan Colmes, the most impotent and ineffectual token liberal ever employed by right wing media.
THIS is insightful commentary during the most important election of my lifetime? THIS is what Fox News thinks is important? THIS is real news?
Fox News represents the low point in the already shallow gene pool of cable TV news programing. With the glowing exception of C-SPAN, cable offers nothing that can compete with any of the news and public affairs programming on public broadcasting. ( Since C-SPAN is operated as a non profit, independent network funded by cable and satellite networks and subscriber user fees, it has been argued that CSPAN is a form of public broadcasting, or at least cable TV's version of it) Does anyone really believe that CNN, MSNBC or Fox offers programming comparable to Bill Moyers Journal, McNiel-Leher news hour, Frontline, Washington Week, NOW? Is there ANY program on for-profit broadcast radio comparable to anything you'll hear on NPR, PRI or Pacifica Radio? (for that matter, is Bravo or A&E comparable to Masterpiece Theater or Live From the Met, is the Discovery Channel really better than NOVA or Nature ? )
During this election, at a time when the very concept of reason is under assault, when so many of our fellow citizens don't understand what it really means to be an American, we are in desperate need of what Ralph Nader called a deep, deliberative democracy.
Is such a need well served by the offerings of the cable news trinity?
Are we citizens getting REAL news?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
