If you live here in Nashville (or over a hundred other syndicated cities), you’ve probably heard the voice of conservative radio talk show host Phil Valentine giving his opinion on a wide variety of subjects. Valentine isn’t just a radio host; he is also a public speaker, author, entertainer, and community organizer. In 2000, it was Phil (and another talk show host) who led the horn honking tax revolt at the Tennessee state capital. Now Phil can add filmmaker to his list of accomplishments.
“An Inconsistent Truth” is a Michael Moore style documentary that pokes fun at Al Gore and global warming. Audiences packed into Nashville theaters to jeer at this vast left wing conspiracy. That many in attendance were wearing short-sleeved shirts in February was irrelevant. Even if the earth is warming, the documentary claims it couldn’t have anything to do with the billions of tons of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere every year. Out of the thousands of scientists who do believe that human activity is causing climate change, Valentine found three who don’t.
Valentine uses the same tactics in his movie that he does on the radio: misrepresent the facts, interview those who support him, disregard or ambush those who don’t, and mock disinters. On his radio show, the villain is typically big government with the usual suspects including Obama, Pelosi, Soros, unions, as well as college professors, journalists, and anyone who challenges his world view. His tactics raise suspicions to the point of paranoia by inferring or outright saying things like,
1. Illegal immigrants are pariahs on society, even murderers and potential terrorists.
2. Muslims, see number #1.
3. China is taking over the US by buying up our Treasuries.
4. The Government is going to take your guns, burn your Bibles, and kill your grandma.
5. President Obama is a socialist. Heck, he may not even be an American citizen.
6. Liberals are “America haters” and always seem to have a “radical agenda.”
And that’s just the tip of the melting iceberg. Like a coal-fired power plant, Valentine spews enough anxiety and anger to single-handedly raise the temperature. And while scaring people is great for ratings, it’s not so wonderful for our country. The toxicity level is so high in Washington and rest of the nation, it’s virtually impossible for reasonable people to get any real work done. And guys like Valentine are right there to keep turning up the heat without providing any light.
A self-described conservative Christian, Valentine believes God is the cornerstone of our country and often attacks abortion and gay rights from his high moral ground. It makes me wonder if Valentine has read the Sermon on the Mount. A few highlights include, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” (Luke 6: 27) “Do not judge, and you will not be judged.” (Luke 6:37). “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Luke 6: 41)
Valentine is rooted in an ideology that has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with a political agenda. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus also says, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.” (Luke 6:43) Phil has accomplished some positive things in our community, such as his work on behalf of the (privately funded) Nashville Rescue Mission. Of course, government programs do much more to assist the homeless, the poor, the sick (“the least of these”) than private citizens could ever do. That is what makes us a compassionate “Christian” nation.
Even more than his politics, I take exception to his derisive rhetoric. Only God knows our hearts, but we can get a sense of someone from their words. “…For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:45) Vilifying whole segments of society and demonizing opponents speaks pretty loudly. Bending facts to score political points is unethical by any standards. And self-righteous people didn’t go over too well with Jesus either. I don’t want to judge Phil Valentine, but his words speak for themselves.
An abbreviated version of this article was posted at The Tennessean, Voices.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE HOMETOWN PROPHET NEWSLETTER
Tags: Al Gore, An Inconsistent Truth, Christian conservative, climate change, global warming, Luke 6: 41, Luke 6:37, Michael Moore, Phil Valentine, political pundits, radio host, Sermon on the Mount
Another insightful column! As Jim Wallis (Sojourner) once said, “How did the radical right convince so many that God favors the rich over the poor, war over peace and corporate profits over the environment?”.
I’m sorry, but isn’t this how Hitler got started? He claimed to speak for God and spread so much hate, bigotry, and ignorance and got so many people riled up that they murdered millions of people just because they were different than what Hitler believed was acceptable. Personally, I am so tired of the hate that is being propagated by people (regardless of who they are or what “side” they are on), and so many of them are claiming to be Christians. Then they wonder why so many are turning their backs on God, religion, and the church.
I’ve said it before and I’ll said it again, and I’ll keep saying it until I’m blue in the face… If someone is not speaking words of love, peace, compassion, harmony, and kindness, and are not finding ways for everyone to get along, then they are NOT speaking for God. They are speaking evil.
I believe we are in a Spiritual Awakening and cleansing, and everything that isn’t working in our nation and world is coming to the surface. Like pus in an infected wound, it needs to come to the surface so that it can be cleansed and healed. We’re seeing this in every area of our lives. And the only thing that is going to heal it is love. Anything else feeds the infection.
Therefore, the next time anyone hears someone speak for God, listen to their words. Are they loving, compassion, and kind? If not, then they are speaking for their own personal egoic agendas. If their words are loving, compassionate, and kind, then you know that their hearts are in alignment with Spirit.
Sirs:
In the interest of fairness, I submit the following for publication as a “Tennessee Voices” column in reply to Jeff Fulmer’s column, “Pundit’s ‘documentary’ bends facts to serve politics.” To do justice to the facts, it is too long for the Letters.
(It has been about five years since you published my last column on global warming. I’ve been controlling my temper! See if I am succeeding here).
Facts Refute Climate Alarmists’ Opinions
Suggested alternate headline: “Partial truths produce climate errors.”
Ironically, Jeff Fulmer’s “Voices” column, “Pundit’s ‘documentary’ bends facts to serve politics” (Tennessean, Fri. 02-17), appears immediately below the caption for the photo of columnist Leonard Pitts, which reads: “Leonard Pitts warns of the use of opinion as fact and public acceptance of it.” Thus, immediately below that warning, we have a gross violation of it!
(Interestingly, too, is a related article, “Global warming docs leaked,” in the same issue, 3A, upon which I will comment at the end).
Nevertheless, Fulmer has done a good service by providing a living exhibit of one of the major causes of error in this climate debate; and as the late, great Sigmund Freud observed, it is only when we understand a problem that we can begin to deal with it.
The problem here is a very common one that afflicts all of us in every area of life. It is the problem of the deceptiveness of partial truths. A classic example is the story of the First Mate on a ship who, upon being found drunk on duty one day, was upset when the captain wrote in the log, “First Mate drunk today.” He asked that it be removed; but when the captain refused, the mate added his own entry: “Captain sober today.”
Now, notice: (1) what the mate wrote was, in itself, totally true; but (2) the kicker is the lie that such a true statement implies, which is that the captain often is drunk!
What truth requires is a knowledge of all of the relevant facts, not carefully and artfully arranged selections. Phil Valentine’s documentary presents the former; alarmists present the latter, and wrongfully accuse the skeptics of the same thing.
In fairness, I have concluded that this is not always deliberate. It is merely ignorance and oversight, due to carelessness. A little work on research is all that is needed to expose the errors in pieces like Jeff Fulmer’s. No doubt Fulmer is a good man, trying to be a decent citizen and fulfill his duty of seeking the truth and promoting it in the best interests of everyone; but his problem is that, like all of us in many of life’s experiences, he has been deceived by partial truths. As the 18th Century French essayist Francois La Rochfoucauld observed, “Some deceits are so convincing that anyone who isn’t fooled by them like everyone else will seem to be stupid.” (My paraphrase. The original, for you purists: “Some deceits are so convincing that not to be taken in by them would argue poor judgment”).
A point-by-point rebuttal to Fulmer:
(1) He says that there are “thousands of scientists who believe that human activity is causing climate change.” That is a partial truth, like “Captain sober today.” All of the facts on that are these:
(a) It is not just “thousands” but practically all climate scientists, including the skeptics, who realize that all of the stuff that civilization has been pouring into the atmosphere must surely, indeed, affect the climate. The only question is, “How much?” The majority answer: “Not significantly at all.” Arthur Robinson’s Petition Project has counted 31,000 scientists (so far–it keeps growing) who deny significant anthropogenic climate change. The alarmists are actually a tiny minority of a few hundred who merely have a louder voice, due to the liberal media’s bias in promoting their view.
Fulmer complains, then, that “Valentine found and featured three who don’t” believe in alarmism. Hey, Jeff: how many representatives does a film have time to interview? Thousands? The three are academic heavies, accurately representing the majority. Al Gore’s famous “concensus” is a deliberate lie, abundantly refuted by now to the point that he cannot help knowing it. He is a deliberate liar, following the principle enunciated by Hitler and Goebells: “If you repeat it often enough and loudly enough, most people will come to believe it.”
(b) There is no evidence that any recent warming trend is anything more than merely another phase in the warming-and-cooling cycle that has been going on for thousands of years–controlled by such things as sun-spot activity.
(c) The evidence is that a warming of only a few degrees would be very beneficial rather than catastrophically harmful–e.g., increased crop yields.
(2) Fulmer says that Valentine’s film “serves politics.” No, he has it backward: it is the alarmist viewpoint that is politically motivated, calling for increased governmental power and increased taxation on the specious ground of “fighting warming, The skeptics are only trying, justifiably, to protect our human interests from the predatory liars and well-meaning ignoramuses who are promoting alarmism as the pretext offered as justification for their draconian proposals for solving a non-existent problem.
(3) The quotes from Jesus and the Bible in the remainder of the column are being fulfilled, therefore, by the skeptics. It is the alarmists who need to hear them. Jeff, did you ever hear of Climategates 1 and 2?
Which brings me to close with an observation about “Global warming docs leaked” (Tennessean, Fri, 02-17. 3A). Apparently, the alarmists are upset at the counter-attack from the skeptics: they are complaining about efforts to teach school children that alarmism is a hoax. The clear implication of the article is that the skeptics are practicing that old educational con game, “brainwashing.” Rebuttal: see above, especially the lesson from “Captain sober today.” The difference between genuine “education” and “brainwashing” is the difference between proved truth and lies. If the alarmists can prove their case, fine; but if the skeptics have proved theirs (and they have), then it is the alarmists who have been engaging in brainwashing for all of these years–and they most assuredly have been pushing it in the schools.
Falsely accusing an opponent of guilt for the same thing that one is doing one’s self, to deflect attention, is one of the oldest tricks in history. Fulmer’s article is a classroom exhibit for that.
David Lutzweiler 4057 Colerdige Drive, Antioch, TN 37013 615-833-7718
dlutz1@bellsouth.net
David,
Thanks for response. Obviously you spent some time on this….I’ll address point by point:
1. It’s good that we all agree that CO2 is causing some warming…. I remember not too long ago, many critics (and I’m pretty sure Valentine was among them), disputed that the earth was warming at all. That notion was ridiculed…. In the face of overwhelming evidence, the scoffers have shifted their attack to say that we’re not causing it, or not very significantly. I’m not going to pretend that I know what’s causing it…. Most of what I’ve read (which isn’t a whole lot) says that most climate scientists believe it does have an effect, although it’s difficult to prove with absolute certainty.
2. I guess these draconian taxes based on climate change would be a carbon emissions tax from polluters…. I’m not sure what Al Gore gets out of it, but if you’re going to subscribe to a conspiracy theory, I think it makes more sense to buy into existing energy corporations doing everything they can to suppress the damage their products may be doing to the environment. There have been known associations between anti-global warming “scientists” taking funding from oil companies. The so-called “liberal” media is really “corporate” media and they don’t want to upset their advertisers. How many solar panel commercials do you see versus commercials for Exxon?
3. Your point about keep repeating the same thing over and over as a tactic for brainwashing…. I heard it in the run up to the Iraq War (WMDs and ties to terrorism) and regarding “trickle down economics” being great for our economy (as an excuse to cut taxes on the most wealthy). IMO, people that listen to one-side (like Valentine, Fox News, etc.) are victims of brainwashing, as I’m sure can be the case with the far left.
Of course, it’s very difficult to tell someone that, because they are so entrenched in the position and they know more than anyone else. I really don’t think ‘the skeptics have proved their case’ at all, however, I’ll try to stay open and learn more about the subject. I hope you’ll do the same. Thanks again.
You should be ashamed for writing crap like this and hurting his movie. Phil is getting the truth out there and you just can’t stand it!