According to Wikipedia, The Wall Street Journal published an article pertaining to a You Tube video spoofing Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth." The entry contains information stating the video, "Al Gore's Penguin Army," had been made by "a public relations and lobbying firm led exclusively by Republican party officials."
After reading the entire entry, I went to The Wall Street Journal's website from the link, and it was on their website. The Journal's article, called "Where did that Video Spoofing Gore's Film come From?," is dated "Thursday, August 3, 2006," but I just discovered it.
Let me explain why I'm putting it here, because I think saying it is important. I'm posting this Wikipedia article because I believe Al Gore's film was a very good film, one of the best of 2006. As far as Global Warming is concerned, I think Al Gore is representing the American people, and those of the world as well, in having prepared this film. And, I think Global Warming exists. However, the people or person--whichever is appropriate--making arguments on Amazon here, in belligerence, I believe present very low standards of credibility. I have deduced from arguments here, alone, that the arguments are both directly from and a by-product of a neo-conservative think tank. And, I said this a long time ago! Read the dates on my articles; I've been saying this for months. This article supports my convictions, because it expresses how propaganda works in the negative connotation of the word: lying through publicity stunts for special interests. It expresses the credibility and mentality of the people spouting off this neo-conservative garbage their P.R. alone calls "scientific arguments," "dissent," and "skepticism"; and, what a neo-conservative P.R. will do and say to attack Al Gore and his film and to avoid the consequences of its statement.
Additionally, I was in the U.S. Army for nine years. I was stationed in Germany, twice, and New York, once. Since I got out, in 2005, I've been attending a community college full-time. Although I may not share certain sentiments with everyone in the army about Iraq's invasion (which I was a part of for 15 months), I have faith and trust in them to make their own decisions about things they think are important. I also have this faith and trust in myself, which is why I am here talking about the film An Inconvenient Truth. I receive no money other than the G.I. Bill benefits for allowing my Honorable military contract to expire, and for having enrolled in college of course. I believe the neo-conservatives are full of garbage, as they show a total lack of regard to academics and a lack of respect to ex-military members wherever it suits them.
Don't fall into their traps.
Hereafter, I've reprinted from the free network Wikipedia entry of today entitled "Al Gore's Penguin Army":
Al Gore's Penguin Army is a video posted on YouTube on May 24, 2006, spoofing Al Gore and his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The video appears to be a product of astroturfing. Despite all appearances of being an amateur production, the Wall Street Journal discovered that the author of the video was using "a computer registered to DCI Group", a public relations and lobbying firm led exclusively by Republican party officials. At the time the video was made, DCI's clients included General Motors and ExxonMobil. DCI has refused to comment on its involvement with the video.
The video, which has a "home-made, humorous quality", was posted on YouTube by "Toutsmith," a person who identified himself as a 29-year-old from Beverly Hills. The video was released on May 24, 2006, the same date as the release of An Inconvenient Truth. Wall Street Journal journalist Antonio Regalado noticed that, despite the amateur production values, a link to the video was the first sponsored listing when he performed a Google search for Al Gore, suggesting to him that someone was paying money to advertise this 'amateur' video. Regalado examined routing information on an e-mail sent by Toutsmith to Regalado and found that the e-mail had been sent from a computer associated with the DCI Group, in Washington, D.C.. The DCI Group is a Republican public relations firm whose clientele includes Exxon Mobil.
When asked if they created the video, DCI Group responded "We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients." The Wall Street Journal also found that sponsored links to the Al Gore video had been placed on Google, and were taken down after DCI was contacted by the Journal. The identity of the party who paid for the sponsored links remains unknown.
The Wall Street Journal consulted a professor of communications who described the spoof as "'Propaganda 101'. It contains no factual information, but presents a highly negative image [of Al Gore]."
I agree Al Gore`s movie was a good one, I agree that neo-conservatives are a pathetic bunch closing their eyes to reality. You on the other hand are even more pathetic, by trying to push a serious climate topic into a political agenda, attacking conservatives without any background-knowledge. If you comment on people`s comments, take your time to read theirs first, before starting with the insults!
I don't think I'm pushing anything into anything. I don't like being harassed with such utter nonsense as I've witnessed. Neo-conservatism is a joke. The fact that someone like Al Gore would receive such resistance over so important a point can only be attributable to neo-conservatism. There is no "political agenda" in me, except of course that people should learn to do their jobs, government being one of them. It's the nonsense everyone with any sincerity is forced to deal with that has hoodwinked our progress. No one ever before has been faced with the grandness of such a problem as we are now with Global Warming and the environment. And, I can't believe the resistance to the seriousness of this problem, and the media accomplice on behalf of a group of political leaders who just recently got us (and me particularly) into Iraq. I have every right to point this out.
First, it's hard to say anything without someone getting it confused. The only action for it is explanation, which I am trying to pull off. Don't forget, I'm trying to get over these people and their pseudo-arguments, and it's hard to do that without offending someone, even sometimes the people I wouldn't ordinarily want to offend. It's probably in the nature of civil rights, as a lot of people were offended by the period of the 1960s. It wasn't supposed to be easy. And, I can't make it easy.
Also, a person's agreements with Al Gore is not the point. The point is whatever the point is, and Al Gore is the point, not an agreement with Al Gore.
It's not a request; it's a demand. That's how I know neo-conservatism is in the wrong.
Are you going to talk about the subject of this message board, or are you going to talk about me? You're going to talk about me. You're acting just like those other fools on these boards. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't care if you do. Can you dig that?
I also don't have to explain myself to you, nor do I think any such explanation matters. If you can't understand my explanation, what difference does it make. The subject here is something else. Stop asking me about my point of view. You're making me as mad at you as I am against the parade of neo-conservative fools hanging around these boards. For all I know, you could be one of them. You've typed three messages on this board so far, none of them pertaining to the message topic, other than your first which only peripherally points out your agreement to Al Gore's film, without even adressing the neo-conservative partisanship of "Al Gore's Penguin Army," the topic here. (I know what the topic is because I put it here.) Yet, you've ironically investigated me, instead. If you can't understand me, maybe you're incapable.
I was talking about the subject, not you, your reactions are at least strange, if not to say stupid. You insult people all the time, have no clue about the topics you are talking about and are a shame for any educated american. I hate american neo-cons but you are the same thing ,only weirder.
If you get mad about that, who gives a f...? I certainly won`t pay anymore attention to your stupidities, huevon!
The neo-conservatives were a group in the late '70s-early '80s of converters into the conservative element, hence "neo," or "new conservative."
If they can convert into a neo-fascist right-wing party, then I can pinpoint their ideologies and turn them 'round as well. I mean it, let them figure it out!
Apparently, it's not enough to feel betrayed by this paradoxical pseudo-intellectualism. Look at the irrational thinking. Look at the way they take advantage of the gullible by the lack of logical meaning, the way they take advantage of people's judgments. If they can do this, so can I, not because it's right, but because people can be just as easily persuaded to something else. It really doesn't matter. It's all a paradox, to them. Let them figure it out! They've displaced their own responsibilities and concerns onto anyone who told them what to do. Let them wallow in their retardation, without a port for their disinterest.
QUOTE--"I agree Al Gore`s movie was a good one, I agree that neo-conservatives are a pathetic bunch closing their eyes to reality. You on the other hand are even more pathetic, by trying to push a serious climate topic into a political agenda, attacking conservatives without any background-knowledge."
Not true! All I'm doin' is showing you the ruthlessness of a few people who want to prevent Gore's film's subject from being acted upon in the democracy whence that film came. The opposition to the film is just as valuable in criticism to the film itself than to leave it alone and never mention it. Why not mention it? Maybe you got something against pointing out how Gore and his film can be attacked without making a discussion over why or how it can be attacked. My point is that this happened here! If you don't want to bring it up, you're the one who's wrong. Criticism addresses other criticism as well as its own subject. For instance, if Roger Ebert had argued over the facts of the film, I have a right to prove his criticisms as incorrect over his facts against the film; you can't get upset over my doing this. If Gore's subject had been turned into a political agenda when it wasn't one to begin with, pointing out the political agenda of those who proposed the idea would be criticism of value.
Part of criticism is to address other criticism--good criticism contains the main points of other criticism. If no one is willing to address the original article here, "Debunked: 'Al Gore's Penguin Army' is Republican P.R. Product!", it's because it's not only correct, but irrefutably correct in its determination of the values of people arguing over this film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Does anyone deny that the soulless practitioners of American fascism are coming from the Republican Party via hatreds toward American liberalism, and that that liberalism is the same liberalism that ensures American rights of sovereignty under the law as professed by the American forefathers?
You people criticizing Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," are essentially ignoring other criticism of this film in order to protect yourselves. You demand discussions about the facts of Gore's film rather than the pertinence of it so that you can ask the wrong questions, a thing very similar to what Senator Joe McCarthy did--to ask not "Are there communists in the government?"; but, "How many?" Every time McCarthy said anything about communists being in government, he would change his numbers because he had created his observations in a delusion of grandeur within his own psychotic mind. And, that is what you right-wing retards hope to achieve here. You won't address the retardation coming from your own stupid ditto heads for the thought that it must be too much for any one of their enemies to correct all the delusional facts they've created--it doesn't matter what you ditto heads say as long as everybody ignores voices of reason by calling them enemies just so you can act in a manner of convenient complacency.
The argument is very much here and you people won't even show up. Your right-wing people are always absent when it comes time to prove the bravery of a reasoned mind. Furthermore, my stating to this effect is not a political rant, but rather a point that politically bent rants have affected criticism. If you admit that politics are affecting criticism, it is criticism of sense to point it out! It's not me who's injecting politics into a discussion, but the politics of a very specific kind which has affected these bulletins. You have it backwards if you think that I am the one doing the political injections by addressing the point of the very existence of "Al Gore's Penguin Army" and the article in which I've mentioned it. What you are is afraid that I've pointed out exactly who REALLY IS INJECTING POLITICS: them. They are. Them! Not me! Them!