A more complete video has been released of the lecture and it shows a different story. The professor was challenging both sides with extreme rhetoric.
He seems badly misinformed on the issue, but this lecture was not the attack on conservatives it was portrayed to be in the heavily edited video released yesterday.
That was a hack job and my comments were inaccurate.
 | gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… |
| gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
Thank you for correcting this.
Anyone who dishonestly edits a video–whether it’s this or the kind of stuff Breitbart and/or his sources do–should be sent to Gitmo for “reeducation.” It’s despicable.
All news reports are edited, but you’re right people like Dan Rather and Ms. Couric should probably be put in Gitmo.
Like Breitbart and/or his sources do? That’s bogus. Name one video, please? The Shirley Sherrod video? Breitbart ran what he was given, unedited. It came to him in the exact length, to the second, in which it was posted. The O’Keefe/Giles videos? The videos were edited, but not in any way that changed the meaning or significance of the viewer’s conclusions.
You’re wrong about the villains in this whole thing. The villains are primarily leftists, like the idiot who edited a video to make it look as if a Tea Party gathering accepted a person with a swastika on the front of his shirt. They didn’t.
Today’s Left is the most corrupt and violent political group in our nation’s history. Fact.
Deal with it, and try to change it, rather than telling lies about it.
Breitbart ran what he was given, unedited.
Yeah, that would be why I said Breitbart or his sources.
You guys will argue about anything. I said that this is sleazy no matter who does it, and still you find reason to go off the rails.
Sorry, dude, I forgot that you folks had declared open season on Breitbart and his sources/associates.
So, you threw it out there, this defamation of character, and now I’m some sort of unreasonable person? I should’ve just left it as I found it? Unchallenged? Yeah, on another planet in a parallel universe, maybe.
Fact: The American left is loony tunes, and they are the most corrupt and violent political faction in the history of the world.
“Defamation of character?” Are you serious? The video, now that was defamation of character. Pointing out that it was intentionally edited to make her look bad is not.
Whoever edited it is a sleazeball, just like whoever edited this LSU thing.
Now tell me, what exactly is it that you find wrong with that statement?
Well, ummm, you’re saying you deplore ALL selective editing, especially when the editing tends to lead to an incorrect conclusion on the part of the viewer(s).
Yay for you, except that’s not what you said. You said, “…whether it’s this or the kind of stuff Breitbart and / or his sources do…”
Which means, you’re against selective editing whether it was the apparent right-wingers who selectively edited the LSU classroom video or the right-wing Breitbart and / or his right-wing associates who selectively edited the Shirley Sherrod video and / or others which offend your sensibilities.
So, why not announce you’re against conservatives and leave the selective editing of videos out of the mix entirely? Because you’re claiming to have said a particular thing you never said.
Steven Goddard admitted his original posting was in error. Andrew Breitbart publicly expressed his regret that (as it turned out, without his foreknowledge) the Shirley Sherrod video didn’t accurately portray the entire thrust of her remarks.
So, now you want people sent to a re-education camp? How very leftist of you. Does that include Steven Goddard, for posting a misleading video yesterday? You got no case, and you have no sense of proportion. Typical loser leftist, lol.
Wow.
This is beyond bizarre. Never mind.
Agreed, I wish these professors would teach sanity though, that most problems govt come up with are not real threats and only tax/money schemes.
I appreciate that the original video was editied, but read the professor’s defence here:
http://www.2theadvocate.com/blogs/politicsblog/108783279.html
He very clearly writes and says that the science isn’t up for debate, and shouts down students who try to present evidence to the contary, on the video . He loads the argument according to his beliefs and then says he presents a balanced argument. In my opinion both the short and the long versions present evidence that is consistent with the indoctrination.
I don’t disagree, but the original video was a hack job and undermined what could have been a good story.
Well done Steven. A clear message should be sent to advocacy groups. We want the truth, not some spliced up hack job. I’m a conservative. I will argue the merits of conservatism based on reality, not some skewed propaganda attempt. It is an insult to all conservatives to have this stuff propagated. Hopefully, those dolts are properly admonished and won’t attempt that sort of stuff again.
I think the professor’s comments were an abomination, and there was no need for them to selectively edit the video. But they did and ruined a good story.
Agreed, fact is always more interesting that fiction. As you rightly state, this professor has many things wrong, but now, ………sigh. The pinheads ruined it.
No, the edited video did not mislead.
He attacked two “extreme” positions, but all the “middle” positions were all liberal positions. Here is his seating chart.
Treating all Republicans and conservatives as “extremists” equivalent to people who want mandatory birth control or to “eliminate all engines” is horribly biased.
John, you’re right. The professor has problems. But now, to attempt to highlight those problems will be met with much skepticism because of the editing job that has been exposed. If they’d just let the story stand on the weight of its merits as opposed to what they did, it would be a lot easier to sway public opinion. In the public eye, even the appearance of impropriety is damning.
Let me get this straight: because Professor Schaefer thinks banning all combustion engines and mandatory birth control are insane (just those two policies), that means he was fair and balanced during this lecture overall?!! That is a ridiculous conclusion to come to.
Do you not see that those two issues are only meant to give him cover for pushing all the socialist policies represented in the “middle” of the classroom seating chart?! He was clearly pushing for higher taxes and govt. regulation to stifle capitalism and procreation. THAT is his “middle,” which he clearly approved of.
You are eating your own with a post like this condemning Campus Reform. Bad move.
The video intentionally made him look like a lunatic. I don’t believe that is the case.
“Do you not see that those two issues are only meant to give him cover for pushing all the socialist policies represented in the “middle” of the classroom seating chart?!”
=======================================================
Yes, we all see that. We also see a disingenuous representation of his lecture. Conservatives do not believe the end justifies the means. That’s for the other end of the political spectrum. In this environment today, it isn’t enough for us to be correct, we also have to be better. No, the playing field isn’t level, yes, it is easier to take short cuts. But that isn’t the way to achieve ones goals.
Like it or not, this guys name is out there now.
So the next thing that’s going to happen the liberals will make believe he’s a hero.
Hopefully he’ll be recruited to John Abraham’s climate action team.
In fact we should run a covert op to nominate him to the team. Is such a thing possible?
I know they’re hard up for help.
Listening to the whole video just confirms the class is not a serious science class . It’s more a “Physics for Poets” non-majors class . If it’s supposed to be for physics/astronomy majors , I pity LSU .
However the unskeptical acceptance of “dangerous” warming by Schaeffer shows he’s oblivious to Richard Lindzen’s repeated presentations of how minuscule the warming over the last 150 years has been compared to the noise in the record .
Physics for Poets – look no further than Roland Emmerich. Amazingly, the ChiefIO managed to not watch The Day After Tomorrow until now:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/review-day-after-tomorrow/
The page at
http://www.2theadvocate.com/blogs/politicsblog/108783279.html
disallows clipboard use. How silly. They don’t like being quoted. And i don’t like being restricted, so let’s paste from the HTML source.
“He is contending that he was fair in his debates about everything but the science, which he said isn’t up for debate and agree upon by scientists.”
About everything but the science. I guess that sums it up very well.
Pingback: Critical Teaching | Skeptical Swedish Scientists