If people don't want to listen to what you have to say, they'll find all sorts of flimsy excuses not to. If Kunstler talked to people with kindergarden language they would still find a way to criticise him because it's the message that they don't like, not the presentation.
WRONG!!!
People decide whether to believe something or not MAINLY because of the way it's presented. There are plenty of psychological studies proving this.
If you want to spread the message of peak oil, talk to people in a language they accept and understand. Otherwise, they won't listen. If the first time you heard about peak oil, it came from a drunk guy in a bar, would you have paid much attention? Well, for some people Jim Kunstler doesn't sound very different from a drunk guy. You may disagree with their judgement. But if you reach the conclusion that they will never listen, you are wrong. One day they will, when they get the message from a source they are willing to believe.
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:47 am Post subject: Re: Sick of Kunstler
MicroHydro wrote:
Ok, I was a good sport and bought The Long Emergency and read all of it. There was much to agree with. Unfortunately, there were many idiosyncratic unsupported opinions and no new or useful information. The only thing I really liked about the book was expressed in the title. I agree that fossil fuel depletion will not be a single apocalyptic event but a series of problems compounding over decades. But that is hardly a fresh revelation. Suburbia was well criticized back in the 1950s as well. So my feelings were ambivalent.
This is really worthless stuff, the man has lost it.
Ok, misanthropes has made great contributions to American social criticism, H.L. Mencken comes to mind. Kunstler is no Mencken.
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson's semi-autobiographical over the top "gonzo journalism" created a true literary classic with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. But 1971 was long ago, and Kunstler is no Thompson.
So Kunstler is frustrated by air travel, can see that United Airlines is gutted, has a bad hip, isn't impressed by workplace fashions at Google, hates LA, and has a low opinion of various grassroots groups that are trying to improve their communities. So what? I see a angry and depressed writer flying around the country burning jet fuel and chasing fiat currency (just like almost all of us in the developed world) while advocating that Americans all retreat to small towns in the northeast or northwest US.
Why even bother to read this stuff? Simmons and Deffeyes taught me things I didn't know. Kunstler simply irritated me. Kunstler is Peak Oil's version of Andy Rooney. If one is entertained by a baby boomer who has managed to become a cranky old man at age 56, maybe he is good for a few laughs. Other than that, he isn't worth reading.
I certainly see some of your points here.
I like Kunstler. I may not agree with some things he says but he probably has the MOST UNIQUE opinions I have ever heard regarding suburban sprawl, the politics of oil, and bleak views of the future when and if the oil supply runs out.
I never fully understood the scope of these issues until I heard him at globalpublicmedia.com and watched End of Suburbia....
I haven't purchased his books but after listening to him, I already know his views.
Joined: Dec 18, 2004 Posts: 4122 Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject:
With the exception of his pro-Iraq war stance ( what on earth is he thinking... or, maybe drinking, there???? ), I happen to very much enjoy reading what he writes... even the part about the pirates, which is very likely to happen just as he predicts. No, I'm not kidding.
Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:27 am Post subject:
Manishevitz, he's getting into the Manishevitz...... Honestly, he's very pro-iraq war and lo and behold, note that a new pipeline is planned, that will benefit Israel greatly.
You have to look at where people are coming from, even if you like what they say, or most of it, and think they say it well, everyone has their own, or their people's, agenda.
It's like listening to "Michael Savage" he's great! I love listening to the guy, but when he gets talking about other talk-radio hosts, it's comical. He hates the non-Jewish ones, utterly hates them. No reason to, the things he accuses them of saying they don't actually say, the stances he pin on them they don't hold, I've gone and listened and verified. They're just not Jewish, the ones he praises are, and that's that. Smart guy, well spoken, very very mentally quick. But you have to know where he's coming from.
Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 2615 Location: The Urban Village
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:57 am Post subject:
Quote:
WRONG!!! People decide whether to believe something or not MAINLY because of the way it's presented. There are plenty of psychological studies proving this.
If you want to spread the message of peak oil, talk to people in a language they accept and understand. Otherwise, they won't listen. If the first time you heard about peak oil, it came from a drunk guy in a bar, would you have paid much attention? Well, for some people Jim Kunstler doesn't sound very different from a drunk guy. You may disagree with their judgement. But if you reach the conclusion that they will never listen, you are wrong. One day they will, when they get the message from a source they are willing to believe.
Well researched and widely accepted theories of persuasian and attitude change such as the ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model) recognize that there are central and peripheral routes to changing or imparting a belief on someone. Ideas imparted via so-called Central routes tend to be longer lasting due to the congnitive changes they have on the listener. These are arguments based usually on observables (unbias info) and things that can be verified by experience or multiple sources. Peripheral routes are attitudes induced less by the substance of the argument, but more on the view of the speaker and other cues given by the speaker. These attitude changes can be rapid, but tend not to be very stable.
Joined: Oct 28, 2004 Posts: 294 Location: SoWashCo, Minnesota
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Contrary to what others are posting, Kunstler is not pro-Iraq war. Looking through the comments on his latest Blog Posting is a comment from the man himself:
Quote:
I hope you all don't suppose that I am a rabid supporter of the war in Iraq. I'm only trying to put across a coherent view of what we're doing there. But I agree with future meme that the American public is (are?) complicit in our desperation, since they insist on retaining all their easy motoring entitlements and "consumer" prerogatives. They've gotten the war that they deserve.
Posted by: Jim Kunstler | June 20, 2005 03:43 PM
I believe that JHK is attempting to be 'fair & balanced' in his discussions about the Iraq war without interjecting too much personal bias into the matter...
Joined: May 31, 2005 Posts: 20 Location: Midwest, USA
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:47 am Post subject:
Some anecdotal evidence on how one regular person sees Kunstler: I showed my wife The End of Suburbia yesterday. One of the few comments she made while watching it was "He's an extremist, isn't he?" during one of Kunstler's rants. I wouldn't, myself, go that far, but I don't think I would ever recommend The Long Emergency to a PO virgin as an intro to the subject...
Sadly, sometimes how you say something is more important than what you're saying. I'm afraid that Kunstler is dangerously close to becoming the Peak Oil equivalent of Michael Moore, who quickly became so revolting to mainstream Americans that he cost Kerry the election. Not that the election wasn't rigged anyway. I can see how someone watching the End of Suburbia or reading his columns would get turned off by his arrogance and his uncanny ability to laugh at people who are at least attempting to do something about PO. I think JK is right about a lot of things but he could use a lesson in diplomacy and PR.
It is not Kunstler's job (or any writers for that matter) to take your lesson in diplomacy. Kunstler has warned for several decades of the stupidity of the American lifestyle and did anyone listen? He has a right an obligation to be angry because few others have been.
I have to assume that your reference to Moore as "revolting" refers to his physical uh, ailment. I've always thought Moore heroic in this regard. The guy is very smart and I suspect realizes that his fatness connects him with all the other fat middle Americans that he is trying to reach. Don't forget the guy is a popularist first. Not an intellectual. As for Michael Moore costing Kerry the election? Have data to support this contention? Actually I believe that Moore energized a lot of people to fight the system.
jmacdaddio wrote:
It is possible to make your point without pissing off everyone around you, because once people are annoyed, they'll never listen and they'll do the exact opposite out of spite.
not everyone operates out of spite. Some people are actually intelligent enough to be motivated by self-interest, simple humanity, humor, and even respect. Pity the folks you know.
The main problem with Kunstler is that he is rude. This has nothing to do with what he says, Savinar and Heinberg are as pessimistic but never come across as badly.
If you listen to the commentary track on The End of Suburbia, one of the film makers sort of let's you know that he really did not get along with Kunstler. Kunstler called him a liar when he was making small talk about his home town. I've also heard how Kuntsler handled a naive California resident who didn't want to give up his/her car.
I prefer the apocalyptic but non-rude style of Savinar.
Joined: Dec 18, 2004 Posts: 4122 Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:03 am Post subject:
Contrary to what others are posting, Kunstler is not pro-Iraq war.
Trab, that's simply not true. Read The Long Emergency. Read the section around page 85. You think someone else wrote that?? Sheeesh, it reads line Wolfowitz wrote it. It just doesn't get more pro-Iraq war than that.
Now, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading his other stuff. Very entertaining and thought provoking he is!
But I can't think of anything other than the protection of Israel motivating him to write such pro-Iraq war statements because it certainly isn't in America's (or anyone elses) national interest to invest +- 100 billion and a thousand occupation force lives every year occupying Iraq. The only clear national security winner, at least for the short-term, is Israel and Kuwait, and I seriously doubt Kunstler is worried all that much about Kuwait.
Joined: Oct 28, 2004 Posts: 294 Location: SoWashCo, Minnesota
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:53 pm Post subject:
eastbay wrote:
Contrary to what others are posting, Kunstler is not pro-Iraq war.
Trab, that's simply not true. Read The Long Emergency. Read the section around page 85. You think someone else wrote that?? Sheeesh, it reads line Wolfowitz wrote it. It just doesn't get more pro-Iraq war than that.
I've read the book, and I understand what you're talking about. I believe the issue is one of perspective. I don't see Kunstler writing about his own personal beliefs so much as he is writing about the national will, as it were. 'We' includes all of the USA acting as a whole.
Considering Kunstler's long history of critiquing suburban US development, I'm not sure how anyone could all of a sudden think he's turned into a neo-con apologist... it doesn't make any sense. As he's stated, the Iraq war is a desperate ploy by a deserate nation to try and secure access to necessary energy supplies. Looking at it from a detached, rational point of view, this does make sense, as the US needs that energy or it's economy will fall apart. The morality of the war is not the issue, it's just the means to the end. We need the oil, or our economy dies. Therefore, the national will is to get the oil by any means necessary.
I believe that's the direction Kunstler is coming from.
Joined: May 30, 2005 Posts: 22 Location: Grosse Pointe
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:36 pm Post subject:
I am a big fan of JHK, as stated earlier. He's an excellent, incisive writer, and I wholeheartedly agree with his views on suburbia and Peak Oil.
But he has expressed some of the nuttiest views on the Middle East this side of Anne Coulter. Go to his blog and review his comments from 9/11 until the Iraq adventure went south (when he began to change his tune). I wil cut and paste them if I get a chance.
Given what a shattering event 9/11 was, I won't comment on his "kill 'em all" rhetoric, except to point out that in his first post-9/11 post, he called for bombing Baghdad.
He continued to push the neo-con line on Saddam very hard for a very long time after it was completely discredited.
In the run-up to the war, while everyone capable of finding Iraq on a map was pointing out that Saddam was a Bathist Arab and a deadly enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, Kunstler was arguing that Saddam merely represented the "secular wing" of Islamic terrorism and was a active threat to the US.
And then, well into the occupation, when it became obvious that the WMD-hype was a pack of lies, Kunstler was still insisting that Saddam might've hidden the WMD or smuggled them into Syria. And, anyway, the only way to know for sure about the WMD was to invade Iraq - never mind Hans Blix.
And that is the first tenant of neocon-ism - a bizarre and completely irrational obsession with invading Saddam.
Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject:
Kunstler is not a neocon-apologist.
Kunstler is a neocon.
Read his book, read his blog, read his background, then read Heinberg on the origins of the neocons. Better yet, read every source out there on the origins of the neocons, it's no secret.
Put it all together, Kunstler is a neocon. He's a Peaker, and that's nice, but he's a neocon.
I've read quite a few years' worth of Kunstler's weekly blog entries in the archives of his website. And now, looking back, it would appear he was quite often wrong with his predictions for the future. It is absolutely true how he wanted blood from Saddam for his allegedly possessing WMD and for being some kind of Middle Eastern terrorist, post 9/11.
Kunstler is a witty, incisive guy, and in my mind he holds up to scrutiny rather well. But in the case of his blood lust, much like I_Like_Plants says, he took a side (a wrong side, btw) and he stuck with it. Since I can't get inside Kunstler's head, I'm just going to assume that he, just like many of us, has a strong ego, and would recoil at the idea of even considering that he was played for a fool, and furthermore volunteered himself as a mouthpiece for this fool's agenda.
Psychologically-speaking, whether this makes him a 'neocon' or just like your typical, arrogant American, I cannot say.
Read his book, read his blog, read his background, then read Heinberg on the origins of the neocons. Better yet, read every source out there on the origins of the neocons, it's no secret.
Put it all together, Kunstler is a neocon. He's a Peaker, and that's nice, but he's a neocon.
what in god's name could you mean. the guy is a neocon you are joking he is a freakin angry, white marxist or an anarchist or maybe he is his own man. But not a neocon for god's sake man
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
you are joking 
