Friday, June 09, 2006

Continued Inconvenience

Following the Memorial Day weekend, we reported that Al Gore's chilling An Inconvenient Truth averaged nearly $92,000 per screen, making close to a half million dollars over a weekend, playing on FOUR screens.

This past weekend, the trend continued. An Inconvenient Truth broke into the top ten, despite the fact that it was only playing on 77 screens. To give you a sense of just how amazing that is, think about the fact that every other movie in the Top Ten played on at least 1,000 screens.

Last week's box office winner, The Break-Up, starring Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn, averaged about $12,800 per screen. In comparison, a documentary about global warming fronted by Al Gore averaged about $17,600.

This weekend, An Inconvenient Truth moves on to another 45 screens, and continues its steady growth. We'll report how it does next week.

Obviously, the Apologists attach a stigma to Al Gore and the 2000 election, and they're intimidated to contemplate how much better things might be in this country had the results been different.

What I don't understand is this, though - global warming should NOT be a partisan issue, should it? The environment that we all live in should NOT be partisan, should it? Shouldn't this be ONE issue where we can all find some agreement?

Al Gore does serious well, but what I dig about him is that he does funny equally well - especially taking swipes at himself and his reputation, as evidenced in this clip from SNL - enjoy!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted by FleshPresser at 10:37 AM /


  • Blogger Cb posted at 2:22 PM  
    Fleshpresser, you are of course write:
    What I don't understand is this, though - global warming should NOT be a partisan issue, should it? The environment that we all live in should NOT be partisan, should it? Shouldn't this be ONE issue where we can all find some agreement?

    The problem isn't so much can we agree that this is an important issue (idiots' denials notwithstanding) it is about what policies should be implemented to bring about the best and most effective change. People who say that this or that shoudn't be "politicized" just don't realize that every issue is political.

    So, the hard work and trouble (the "devil," if you will) really is in the details. Because rather than discuss the merits of one policy move rather than another pols of all stripes will immediately begin labeling the opposition's policy with pejoratives and thus, politicize the issue.

  • Blogger FleshPresser posted at 2:38 PM  
    Yes, and no... I think... :)

    I don't believe that all issues are political. Actions may be political. Priorities may be political. Resolutions and agreements and plans may all be political.

    But I don't believe that the issue, in and of itself, is political.

    Linguistically splitting hairs? Absolutely. But worth splitting, I believe.

    My agreement with you comes in the form of the "devil" being in the details... this is, of course, true.

    My point was that if everyone remained open to the information and facts related to the issue, then the "devils" might be easier to resolve.

    Right now, I think the problem is actually as you put it - idiots' denials. Too many idiots still believe that there isn't a problem. And sadly, too many of those people are in decision-making positions within our government.

    From what I've seen, the "politicization" of this issue isn't in the form of polciy versus policy - it's still a matter of convincing people that this is, in fact, a priority.

  • Blogger Jon posted at 9:50 PM  
    Wow, there are more liberals in America than I thought. After all only liberals could stomach a movie from Al Gore.

  • Blogger The Professor posted at 12:01 AM  
    Well, if I may, "politics" is really the converting of a private issue into a public one. Once the "public interest" is part of a discussion it has become a political discussion.

    If you wish for the environmental concerns to not be a "political issue" then encourage the government to not get involved. It really is definitional.

    The other concern I have with this issue is not the question of "does global climate change occur" but rather what really causes global climate change. As recently as June 2nd, NPR's Science Friday aired a nearly 16 minute segment discussing that "New climate research in the Arctic shows that some 55 million years ago, the area around the North Pole was balmy and tropical" The question this brings up is--what causes climate change, and can it truly be attributed to the intervention of mankind, or is it actually part of the natural process of existence?

    I realize that, simply by holding a contrary view, I can be labeled an "apologist" (which begs the question--are the others "rudists" since they aren't polite enough to apologize?) but thoughtful people can honestly observe the same data, and observe the correlations, and infer different causal relationships.

    This is the greatest challenge in conducting any research following the scientific method--understanding that correlation does not mean causation. From that, then, we must understand that while the best scientists of the day can conclusively, and often persuasively, state certain "truths" they are preceeded by a number of other equally assured scientists who have since been proven to be "wrong."

    For a far more eloquent discussion about the various scientific paradigms, and their shifts over time, I highly recommend Thomas Kuhn's outstanding work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

    The Prof

    P.S. Note I haven't dealt with the issue of the movie, or the "front man" for the movie. I have found that politicians make bad science, and liberals are quite often willing to "make a point" with their money by going to see things such as this. Imagine what could happen to the budget deficit if, instead of insisting on raising everyone's taxes, the rich liberals would just write checks to the US Treasury--as if the taxes had been raised. I am sure the government would deposit the check.

  • Blogger FleshPresser posted at 12:38 PM  
    Jon - Long time, no see... this is exactly the type of mindset I'm talking about in this post... "forget the issue, I can't stand Al Gore" - the messenger clouds the issue and turns it into something that is unbearable to you. That's unfortunate, because the message is something that we all need to hear, regardless of the messenger. As to the number of liberals around, just wait until you see how many show up in November at the polls - you ain't seen nothin' yet!

  • Blogger FleshPresser posted at 1:06 PM  
    Hey Prof...

    If it really is definitional, then let's set things straight here... "politics" is not taking private issues and making them public. "Politics," by definition, is the art and science of governing, and the management of internal and external affairs. Politics are the methods or tactics involved in managing an entity.

    This inherently asks for a governing body of some form to be involved. Not excluded.

    Last time I saw an example of what you were talking about, Ann Coulter was trashing that model, as well. Widows from 9/11, turned advocates, were being trashed by her as being "untouchable" somehow - so, the government isn't supposed to be involved, but the people affected aren't supposed to be involved.... so exacly WHO is supposed to be involved, other than King George?

    In terms of the balmy conditions once found in the Arctic, I love how folks like Matt Drudge (and I'm not saying that this is what you're doing here) latched on to that story immediately and said, "see? there's no problem... global warming is a crock."

    Apologists, at least as I define them here on PTF, are those who blindly apologize for the Bush Administration and fail to look at any contradictory facts outside of those presented by any of the given mouthpieces of the Administration. In this context, I wouldn't label you as an "Apologist."

    The fact that you and I may hold contrary beliefs is fine... I actually prefer to see differing viewpoints here on PTF, rather than always preaching to the choir, though there is some restorative value in that, as well, obviously. :)

    Soooo... coming the long way around back to the initial point... I simply feel that even though there are differing viewpoints, there are starting places which can begin a dialogue on the enviornment and global warming... places of common denominators which affect us all, where the unification can begin. This IS an issue that holds that possibility. And to see it simply as a "Conservatives are against the environment/think global warming is a myth/prefer big business to green trees and fresh air" and "liberals believe we're killing the world/global warming will destroy us all/have you hugged a tree today" does a great disservice to all of us.

    Finally, I love how you couch your "liberal stereotype" in the form of a "look how good I am for not talking about Al Gore". Instead of asking liberals to write checks to the Federal government, imagine what would happen to the budget deficit if... oh, I don't know... we weren't in Iraq? Bush grew a backbone and were able to occassionally veto a spending bill? If Bush and the Republican led Congress decided on an equitable form of taxation and tax cuts that didn't simply affect the wealthiest 5 percent? Remember, you were the one throwing out the rhetoric in the form of saying look how I'm skipping past the rhetoric...

    Now, do you two have ANY other relatives with anything else to say? ;)

  • Post a Comment

    « Home