SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (7322)3/14/2004 10:33:42 PM
From: stockman_scottRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Movie depicting horrors of global warming could boost votes for Democrat challenger
_____________________

The dream life of filmmaker Michel Gondry

commondreams.org

by Dan Glaister in Los Angeles

Published on Saturday, March 13, 2004 by the Guardian/UK

Here's the pitch: a dullish candidate, outflanked by his opponent's serious money, attacked for his liberal leanings, is swept to an unlikely victory thanks to a blockbuster movie that focuses on the effects of big business and the agro-industrial complex.

Audiences throw their popcorn aside, pick up their ballot papers and realise that they too can make a difference. The studio behind the movie: 20th Century Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch. The director: Roland Emmerich; no Martin Sheen-style bleeding heart Democrat but the brawn behind Independence Day.

It sounds unlikely, but this summer might just see an alliance of commerce, populist entertainment and feel-good concern combine to weaken President George Bush and hand votes to his expected Democrat rival John Kerry.

On the other hand, the film could tank, like one of its director's other monster-budget summer openings, Godzilla.

May 28 sees the worldwide release of The Day After Tomorrow, the eco-armageddon story to beat all others.

The first trailers for the film, released on the internet last week, give a taste of the scale of the eco-horrors to come. Filmed in a combination of slick computer generated special effects and faux newscast verité, tidal waves sweep across cities and snow piles halfway up the towers of Manhattan as disjointed voices articulate the chaos around them.

"What you are seeing is happening now," says a breathless newsreader. "Look over behind me," shouts a TV reporter, "that's a tornado, yes, a twister." The film cuts to a volcano erupting next to the Hollywood sign in Los Angeles. A huge flock of birds flies across the sky, a mass of people is seen crossing the Rio Grande between Mexico and the United States.

Filmed with a budget of more than $100m (£55.6m) and special effects said to be the greatest thing since, well, since the last big budget movie, the film has one other difference from other Hollywood blockbusters: it has a conscience.

"At some point during the filming we looked around at all the lights, generators and trucks and we realised the very process of making this picture is contributing to the problem of global warming," the director and producers say in a statement on the film's official website. "We couldn't avoid putting CO2 into the atmosphere during the shoot, but we discovered we could do something to make up for it; we could make the film carbonneutral." By planting trees they will take out the CO2 the production put in.

The film's website includes a lengthy list of internet links to organisations that have researched the effects of global warming. During filming last year, Emmerich described the film as "a popcorn movie that's actually a little subversive".

Whether this is the typical hype that surrounds a Hollywood blockbuster or the heartfelt statement of a tortured artist does not really matter. What seems certain is that the film will help to propel global warming and the environment high up the political agenda.

President Bush is known to be sceptical about the possibility of global warming, while the environment is a traditional strong card for the Democrats. With issues such as oil drilling rights in Alaska playing strongly among some voters, the president's opponents have regularly attacked him for the favouritism he is perceived to have shown to the fossil fuel giants that dominate the US economy.

Unrest

The Pentagon even got in on the act, releasing a study last month that suggested that one outcome of global warming could be the rise of mass civil unrest. In one scenario, drought, famine and rioting erupt across the world, spurred on by climate change. As countries face dwindling food supplies and scarce natural resources, conflict becomes the norm.

"Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," says the Pentagon study. "Once again, warfare would define human life."

"The climate is going to play a significant role in the campaign," said Luke Breit, chairman of the Democrat's environmental caucus in California, where the environment is traditionally a key political issue. "John Kerry is mentioning clean air and water at every opportunity. It's going to be on the first tier of issues. Our job is to make clear how anti-environment the government has been."

But while it can be fortuitous for an event such as a mass appeal movie to come along and propel an issue to the forefront of voters' consciousness, there are also pitfalls. "The danger is it could make it look more trivial," said Mr Breit. "My guess is that people in the environmental leadership around the country are holding their breath. I'm hoping that it's going to be very good and that we have great entertainment value but that at the same time it treats the science seriously."

One US environmental pressure group has already enlisted the help of one of the film's stars, Jake Gyllenhaal, to help promote its agenda while promoting the film.

The Day After Tomorrow's advance publicity suggests a typical Hollywood mix of fact, fantasy and hype: fake weather reports and testimonies from fans about where they would like to be the day the world dies are mixed with earnest exhortations to help avert global warming.

And Hollywood has been here before. The Perfect Storm, Armageddon and Twister all combined Hollywood's love of little people battling insurmountable natural - and unnatural - powers while giving great special effects.

"In Independence Day Roland Emmerich brought you the near destruction of the earth by aliens," says the website. "Now, in The Day After Tomorrow, the enemy is an even more devastating force: nature itself." It'll have them voting in the aisles.



To: American Spirit who wrote (7322)3/14/2004 10:36:40 PM
From: stockman_scottRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
An election so nasty, so soon

csmonitor.com

It's a scrappy battle, but public is engaged.

By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the March 15, 2004 edition -

NEW YORK - Neither Sandy Hunt nor Kathy Griffin likes nasty political ads. Indeed, both are already "horrified" by the hostile tone of this year's presidential campaign.

But no matter how unpleasant it gets, both small-business executives plan to vote Nov. 2. The threat of terrorism and troubled state of the economy have made politics central to them as never before.

But there's also another dynamic at play - the polarizing nature of the Bush presidency. Ms. Hunt is determined to vote for George Bush because she doesn't like the feeling that people have a "vendetta" against him. Ms. Griffin is just as adamant about supporting John Kerry because "Bush is a runaway train ... and I feel very strongly about stopping him."

Their comments reflect a truism about campaign 2004: Even though the election has turned nasty earlier than any in modern history, experts predict voters will remain engaged in the political process - and probably go to the polls in large numbers.

While negative campaigns often dampen voter turnout, analysts believe the election this time around is different. Voters, already, are unusually engaged.

"The stakes are high and the country is incredibly polarized," says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University in Providence, R.I. "People don't like the negativity and by November they're going to hate both candidates, but they're still going to vote."

Indeed, pollster John Zogby puts it, it's an "armageddon campaign," because each side claims the election of the other would mean "the end of the world."

At least since World War II, the incumbent at this stage of an election campaign is usually sitting in the White House Rose Garden above the political fray. He doesn't step out and lower himself to politics until at least the summer, allowing him to maintain the aura of wisdom, power, and dignity that comes with the Oval Office.

And his challenger usually isn't chosen until much later in the spring. Then he takes a little time off to recover from the primaries and restock his war chest. The combined dynamic gives country a rest from politics.

No rest this year
But these are clearly not usual times. With the Democrats' front-loaded primary schedule, John Kerry is already the presumed nominee. And with polls showing him either even or just ahead of President Bush, the Republican stepped out of the garden last week and stunned pundits by going directly on the attack, accusing his Democratic rival of being weak on national security and threatening to raise taxes.

And Kerry, determined not to be defined by his Republican rival as he steps in earnest onto the national stage, struck back just as forcefully, accusing the President of misleading the country with negative ads "once again."

Earlier in the week, he was also caught on a microphone calling the Republican attack squads as the most "crooked" and "lying" ever.

Will some tune out?
"If this keeps up from now until November, there's the potential for the public to be pretty turned off by this and decide 'I don't want either of these guys,' and stay home," says Candace Nelson, director of the Campaign Management Institute in Washington. "But the election is a long way away, so it may just go over people's heads."

Many political junkies have already have had enough and are ready for a break.

They're hoping both candidates decide to turn down the rhetoric at least until the cherry blossoms are done flowering in Washington.

"Kerry and Bush are turning out to be the relatives that won't leave, no matter how many hints you drop," says Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia.

Mudslinging not new
And while he, too, can't remember a campaign that launched as early with as much venom, he does note that there have been plenty of others that eventually turned even more malicious, particularly in the 19th century, when newspapers were little more than partisan mouthpieces. In the mid 20th century, President Truman likened his opponent to Hitler as the fascists' tool. But that wasn't until late October.

"Campaigns have certainly been as negative, but this one could be negative for longer than it ever has been before," says Professor Sabato.

All of the hostility could end up damaging the body politic as a whole, he worries, leaving the country even more polarized than it is now and Congress even less able to find a center of compromise from which to govern.

But political analysts point out that negative ads also can serve a civic function - education - because they provide information, even if it is spun to portray an opponent negatively. They also serve to keep each party's base energized.

'Red meat' for the base
That's key this year, because there are so few undecided votes. Usually at this time, about 20 percent of voters haven't made up their minds. But in Mr. Zogby's national polls, that's down about 5 to 7 percent, so reinforcing the base is critical.

"The negativity is not so much as in other years to persuade undecided, it's to throw red meat to your supporters," says Zogby. "So John Kerry doesn't apologize [for his 'lying and crooked' remark] - he doesn't have to, because his supporters hate George Bush."

And the President can come out of the Rose Garden and attack Kerry by name, because his supporters are just as passionately opposed to Kerry.

Politics no tea party
"This isn't a Sunday afternoon tea party. This is the rough, cutting edge of our democracy," Zogby says. "And it's never going to be friendly or pleasant. That's just not the way politics is."



To: American Spirit who wrote (7322)3/14/2004 11:49:32 PM
From: Lizzie TudorRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
Candidates narrow focus to 18 states
Battle under way in most contested areas of nation

Judging from interviews with strategists on both sides and with outside analysts, 10 of the closest states from four years ago are seen as the most competitive as the campaign begins. Bush and Gore split them five-five. The Bush states that may be most vulnerable to Democratic takeover are Florida, Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire and Nevada, while the five Gore states eyed by the GOP are Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Mexico.

msnbc.msn.com

I can't see Bush winning any of these states except Iowa. The Job loss in these swing states is the worst in the nation, a lot of them have environmental issues with Bush policy too.