1/15/2018 0 Comments Free Streaming Online Video with English subtitles ready for download Kim Possible: A Sitch In Time• • • • Starburst Animation Co., Ltd. Distributor Release Original network Original release November 28, 2003 ( 2003-11-28) Chronology Followed by Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time (also known as Kim Possible Movie: A Sitch in Time) is a 2003 American. It is the first film based on the original television series, about a crime-fighting high-school cheerleader named, who battles a band of time-traveling criminals. The film was directed by for the. It contains elements of action, comedy, and science fiction, and was created with a mix of traditional and computer-generated animation. The starring voices are as the title character and as her sidekick and best friend. [explaning why he can't wait for Latin class] Ron: Are you kidding? I can't wait for Latin class! The salsa dancing, the salsa eating. Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time. Here's the 'sitch': When Shego and her evil henchmen capture the all-powerful Time Monkey and start monkeying around with time, a. This is the first film based on the TV show, followed by in 2005. Contents • • • • • • Plot [ ] () is a high-school cheerleader and world-famous crime fighter, and () is her faithful sidekick. Ron has a pet named Rufus (). The film begins at the start of a new school year, but the start of a fun year is ruined when Ron finds out he's moving to. Meanwhile,,, and team up to steal the Time Monkey, a small used to travel through time. With help from her computer guru () and her friend, Kim follows the villains to as they steal the body and head of the Time Monkey, but the villains connect the head to the body inside the Time Monkey's temple in and they escape through the resulting time portal. Shortly afterward, Kim is visited by a large talking mole rat from the future, a descendent of Rufus named Rufus 3000, who gives Kim a time-travel device and explains that 'The Supreme One' is preparing to take over the world. ![]() Meanwhile, Drakken, Killigan and Monkey Fist turn themselves into little children and travel back in time to Kim's first day in preschool in order to discourage her from becoming a crimefighter. Posing as her schoolmates, the villains try to bully the four-year-old Kim, but she defeats them and makes friends with Ron, while the high-school-age Kim arrives to fight Shego, who has been observing her accomplices. With their preschool plot foiled, the villains turn back into adults and escape forward in time, to a day when Kim and Ron are middle-school-aged children. When a billionaire accidentally traps himself in the web of deadly laser beams that guard his vault, his security expert accidentally contacts Kim through her new babysitting, and after a neighbor drives Kim and Ron to the billionaire's mansion, Kim uses her cheerleading skills to jump through the laser beams and save the billionaire. Monkey Fist goes into the past and retrieves a huge rock gorilla, which attacks Kim, but high-school-age Kim and Ron appear, and high-school Ron destroys the rock gorilla by accidentally activating the security lasers. As police officers arrest Drakken, Killigan and Monkey Fist; Shego, after being visited by her future self while watching the fight, escapes with the Time Monkey into the future. Rufus 3000 then arrives and reveals to Kim that Shego is the Supreme One, not Drakken, stating that he thought it was obvious to her since Shego is the only one smart enough to actually take over the world. Kim then activates the time portal and she, Ron, Rufus and Rufus 3,000 go to the twenty-year future to stop her. In the future, Shego has become of the world and made everyone her slaves. Kim and Ron are captured and sent to their old high school to be brainwashed, but they are rescued by Kim's younger twin brothers, Tim and Jim, along with Rufus 3000 and an army of naked mole rats. The twins take Kim and Ron to the secret headquarters of the political resistance movement, whose leader turns out to be Wade. Together, they and all of the Rufuses sneak into Shego's castle, where they fight their way past the villains and an army of monkeys to the room where Shego keeps the Time Monkey. After capturing Kim and her friends, Shego reveals that she separated Kim and Ron by making money in the, buying the company that Ron's mother worked for and having her transferred to Norway, her reason being that while together, Kim and Ron actually made a decent team, but if they were apart, they couldn't stop her. In his anger at having to live in Norway and the destruction of his favorite restaurant, Ron throws Drakken across the room. The twins break out of their chains, the pillars that hold up the palace ceiling collapse and the Time Monkey falls to the floor and breaks, undoing all the effects of Shego's time travel. This causes Kim, Ron and Rufus to float through a time portal and travel back to the first scene of the film, at the end of their first school day. At the moment when the first time disturbance occurred, a wave of time distortion washes over Kim and Ron, and when the moment has passed, the world has been restored to its original state and the two teens have lost all memory of the film's events, except that Ron knows he hates, but has no idea why he said it. Gadgets [ ] • Kimunicator - The communication device Kim uses to speak to Wade or Ron throughout the world. It is her most used gadget in the show. When Ron moves away to, she gives him his very own 'Ronnuminator'. • Chrono Manipulator - Rufus 3000 had given Kim a watch-like bracelet which is 'her ticket to '. She can tear open a circular blue portal through time itself. • Scooter - What Kim and Monique used to track down Drakken, Shego, Monkey Fist and Killigan in. • Juvinator - An device that caused decelerated aging. Drakken, Monkey Fist and Duff Killigan used it to become toddlers to infiltrate past four-year-old Kim's Preschool. • Grappling Hooks - A red hairdryer that contains an endless supply of grappling that enable Kim to scale walls from a distance. Voice cast [ ]. • as • as • as • Harrison Fahn as • as • as, a hyper-evolved futuristic descendent of Rufus. • as • as • as. She becomes a domination-hungry ruler in the future. He becomes Shego's slave in the future. • as • as • as • as • as and • as and • as • as • as • as, one of Shego's minions. • as animals' vocal effects (uncredited) Release [ ] The film was aired on November 28, 2003, between the 13th and the 16th episode of the second season of. In the re-runs, the film was usually split in three episodes. It was released on DVD on March 16, 2004 in the U.S. () and on March 14, 2005 in the U.K. References [ ].
0 Comments
1/15/2018 0 Comments ShowTime Full Radical Online FreeThoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company. Favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues. Radical The Book by David Platt. Encounter what Jesus actually said about being his disciple. Radical, in politics, one who desires extreme change of part or all of the social order. The word was first used in a political sense in England, and its introduction is generally ascribed to, who in 1797 declared for a “radical reform” consisting of a drastic expansion of the franchise to the point of universal manhood. The term radical thereafter began to be used as a general term covering all those who supported the movement for parliamentary. After the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, which extended the suffrage only to part of the middle class, a group of Radicals allied with the faction in Parliament continued to press for an extension of the vote to include even the working class. When the Reform Act of 1867 further widened suffrage, the Radicals, notably in London and Birmingham, took the lead in organizing the new voters, helping to transform the Whig parliamentary faction into the of the later Victorian era. Because of their efforts on behalf of the working-class vote, the Radicals earned the loyalty of the trade unions; from 1874 to 1892 every trade unionist who sat in Parliament regarded himself as a Radical. In before 1848 the term radical designated a republican or supporter of universal manhood suffrage; open of republicanism being technically illegal, republicans usually called themselves radicals. After 1869 a self-styled Radical faction led by began to drift away from the moderate democratic-republicanism of. These Radicals deemed themselves the true heirs of the French Revolutionary tradition. In 1881 at Montmartre they adopted a platform calling for broad social reforms, and at the turn of the century the was formed. The English Radicals of the 19th century were influenced by philosophical ideas assuming that men are able to control their social by, a position held by the so-called philosophical radicals. Because these assumptions also underlay Marxist theories of social reform, the label radical in time was affixed to Marxists and other advocates of violent, thus becoming inapplicable to the gradualist reformers. In the, although the term is usually one of opprobrium, this was not always true in the post-Depression years of the 1930s; and it is generally not true in less stable societies. In popular American usage, radicalism stands for political extremism of any variety, of the left or right; Communism serves as an example of the former, Fascism of the latter. The term has more commonly been applied to the left, but the expression “the radical right” came to be used commonly in the United States. Various youth movements in the United States, widely labeled as radical, were associated with denunciation of traditional social and political values. 'Do you believe that Jesus is worth abandoning everything for?' In Radical, David Platt invites you to encounter what Jesus actually said about being his disciple, and then obey what you have heard. He challenges you to consider with an open heart how we have manipulated a God-centered gospel to fit our human-centered preferences. With passionate storytelling and convicting biblical analysis, Platt calls into question a host of comfortable notions that are common among Christ's followers today. Then he proposes a radical response: live the gospel in ways that are true, filled with promise, and ultimately world changing. Read Radical? How has it affected your life or church? • • • • • • •. __.s._) N❤E (@adrika_bby) Veronika Pacanova (@veronikapacanova) Daniel Kravec (@dastraj_site_tv_) Nikolaj Milev (@niki_pro_kid) Jabko Jablonecky (@jabko_jablonecky) Manuel werth (@xanxel_xerxh) FelixBerressem (@ich__bin_felix) (@11eins) Sweet Instafood (@sweet_instafood) berat. Conceptual meaning nedir mullavalliyum thenmaavum film Libya s eurodach al krakowska buchstaben haben farben godfrey african father Equatorial Guinea. Mazouna 2013 tiguan se obamacare news benson az de minimis principle commercial law flinthill banjo company zach sobiech prom opep como cartel justin. ![]() Hi folks, and welcome to this movie web page! Are you looking for where can you watch Az igazi Mikul�s 2005 movie online? Well I am publishing this to let you know that downloading Az igazi Mikul�s not to mention watching Az igazi Mikul�s the full movie streaming for free is straightforward. By signing up for a membership web site you can observe well known stars such as Gy�rgy Cserhalmi, Blanka Szilasi, Lajos Bert�k, D�nes Ujlaky online with the best quality on the market. The movie Az igazi Mikul�s 2005 happened to be written by P�ter G�rdos, Zsuzsa T�th and unveiled in the year 2005 with it likely be a winner among director P�ter G�rdos's fans. It's not surprising why it was eventually rated 3.8, this movie is guaranteed to hold your interest for the 3.8 as you notice that you are relating to the characters. Movie Plot: Az igazi Mikul�s Cast & Crew Gy�rgy Cserhalmi, Blanka Szilasi, Lajos Bert�k, D�nes Ujlaky Genres Drama, Family. Shop for carry on cowboy on Etsy, the place to express your creativity through the buying and selling of handmade and vintage goods. Comedy Stodge City is in the grip of the Rumpo Kid and his gang. Mistaken identity again takes a hand as a 'sanitary engineer' (plumber) by the name of Marshal P. Knutt is mistaken for a law marshal! Being the conscientious sort, Marshal tries to help the town get rid of Rumpo, and a showdown is inevitable. The theme of the tenderfoot pitched into the Wild West and cleaning it up was old by the time England's merry Pinewood pranksters tackled it. In a sense, that is the history of the USA in a nutshell: disciplining the wilderness with the aid of the greenhorn's civilisation. 'Destry Rides Again' and 'The Paleface' had made a joke of the epic long since-- safe to do so once the frontier was closed and tamed-- and not long before, Britain's Kenneth More had visited Hollywood to play the Limey sheriff of Fractured Jaw. Mel Brooks would go over the old ground in 'Blazing Saddles' and John Cleese would uphold the law in 'Silverado'. Enter Jim Dale as the 1966-vintage innocent abroad: a sanitary engineer (first class), mistaken for the US marshal who can rid Stodge City of the baleful reign of terror of the Rumpo Kid. ('Rumpo' is an obsolescent Britishism for Sid James's favourite activity-- cf 'tiffin' in 'Carry On. Up the Khyber'.) Abetted or hindered by a corruptible judge, a saloon madame, a drunken Indian, a whiskery and wheezy old Confederate colonel, a six-gun-totin' Annie Oakley and other stock figures from generations of fleapit oaters, P. ![]() Knutt does his best and worst. Scriptwriter Talbot Rothwell was now well launched on the great period of Britain's most successful and durable film comedies. Historical spoofs inspired Rothwell: Cleo, Screaming, Khyber. This one is a little different, and perhaps falls a little short. Attention to detail extends beyond the sets and mounting of the production, which always belied Carry On's 'low budget' tag: the accents and horsemanship are more than adequate, the body language in the crowd scenes accurate enough to be mistaken for a Randolph Scott or Audie Murphy vehicle, and apart from Hawtrey (who is funnier for not trying to be anything but himself) the principals, like the script, stay firmly in the roles as written. This Carry On eschews anachronistic and topical gags as well as calculated flaunting of its cheapness. It lacks some of the more incongruous belly laughs and double entendres we expect from Rothwell-- although 'bullocks', to be reiterated in Khyber, are harnessed here already. Babs Windsor, who turned everything into a cockney music hall romp, is replaced by the more actressy and straightforwardly glamorous Angela Douglas; Kenneth Williams depicts an old man for once, with no epicene overtones; Sid, who had often played Yanks, is conscientious about remaining in character. He does not lean as much as usual on his dirty laugh or 'cor blimey', more on a priapic snorting. There is more action, less slapstick. Future stalwarts Butterworth and Bresslaw make their bows, and have not yet established themselves enough to be given a lot of personally tailored business. Running gags are displaced for plot twists. Stodge City is in the grip of the Rumpo Kid and his gang. Mistaken identity again takes a hand as a “sanitary engineer” (plumber) by the name of Marshal P. In short, this is one Carry On that leans on story and consistency more than on a string of harking-backs, catchphrases and skits to carry it through. However, there are plenty of pleasures, if also some sadness in seeing Joan Sims take a back seat to the younger glamour girls, becoming the 'old bag' before Sid's very eyes. Rothwell, instead of raiding his bag of old chestnuts, comes up with some lovely fresh ones such as Judge Burke assuring Knutt that some of his best friends were lynched- 'there ain't no stigma to it out here'. Above all, though, this is where Sid decisively became the tentpole of the series-- in Cleo he had still contested with Williams for the limelight. Like the best screen comedians and horror stars such as Karloff, Sid can command attention without being varied in his parts or versatile in his effects; he is a very limited actor who can make his repeated schticks and tricks funnier and funnier with repetition. He is the British cinema's Lord of Misrule; it's impossible to imagine that ageing, knowing rogue playing a depressed type, failing to lift a film or not cheering up an audience. He is a life force, and when he accepted he was too old to chase skirt on the Carry Ons, they could never be the same again. Concurrent with the redefinition of Gothic horror in British films, courtesy of Hammer Studios, the end of the Fifties saw a successful rebranding of English comedies from Peter Rogers Productions. Painted in broad strokes and aimed squarely at the punters, Carry on Sergeant (1958) was a jab at the starchy military films produced before, during, and after World War II; the first volley of the Carry On assault made back its investment in only two weeks. A follow-up, Carry on Nurse (1959), was the top box office draw in its year of release. Averaging nearly two films per annum, the series progressed from lampooning pockets of British life (in Carry on Teacher [1959], Carry on Constable [1960] and Carry on Cabby [1963]) to spoofing current hit movies. Carry on Jack (1963) was a piss take on Billy Budd (1962) and Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) - the proposed title, Up the Armada, was nixed by the British censors - while Carry on Spying (1964) took aim at the vogue for espionage films and Carry on Cleo (1964) had a go at Joseph Mankiewicz's elephantine super-production Cleopatra (1963). By the time Carry on Cowboy (1966) went into production in July 1965, the series was the proverbial well-oiled machine. The franchise had gone to color with Carry on Cruising (1962) and original screenwriter Norman Hudis was swapped out for Talbot Rothwell but otherwise moviegoers knew exactly what they were in for with each new film: a comic scenario laid against a familiar backdrop, played by a revolving cast of rubber-faced character actors eager to do anything for a laugh. Many of the Carry On crew had honed their comedic chops in the military. Series regular Kenneth Williams had spent his wartime service in Calcutta as a cartographer and was later assigned to the Combined Service Entertainments Unit. Scenarist Rothwell had been a Royal Air Force Pilot, shot down over Holland early in the conflict, and confined to a German prisoner of war camp for the duration; while creating comedy sketches for camp concerts, Rothwell met fellow POW Peter Butterworth, who studied acting after the war's end and made his Carry On debut in Carry on Cowboy, as the sardonic sawbones of the prairie hamlet of Stodge City. Radio and stage comic Sidney James later allowed that Carry on Cowboy was his favorite of the series. Like his costar Jim Dale, James took an intensive course in horseback riding in the stables of Pinewood Studios and spent his down time twirling his six-shooter on his index finger; keeping in character, James enjoyed bushwhacking his costars by poking them from behind with the barrel of his prop revolver. (Shooting the film by day, James spent his evenings on the stage of the London's Saville Theatre, starring in The Solid Gold Cadillac with Margaret Rutherford.) Though the production's first official day of shooting, July 12th, was a rain out, spirits were buoyant throughout principal photography (which ended on September 3rd). Director Gerald Thomas played a practical joke on actor Bernard Bresslaw, also making his Carry On debut; learning that the 6'7' actor was afraid of heights, Thomas had Bresslaw scale a tree on location at Buckinghamshire's Black Park and, when he had settled precariously on a branch, called lunch. In addition to shooting around the unpredictable British weather, director Thomas also had to find creative ways to make the British countryside look like the American frontier. Over the course of six weeks, art director Bert Davey constructed a complete western town on the Pinewood backlot, bookending Stodge City's main drag with tall buildings to obscure panoramas of what resembled moors more than desert flats. A patch of lowland heath in Surrey's Chobham Common made do for the outskirts of Stodge where a tribe of hostile aboriginals (led by Charles Hawtrey's unabashedly effeminate chieftain) attacks a stagecoach. Director of photography Alan Hume (a specialist in color, who had shot Hammer's The Kiss of the Vampire [1963] and the Amicus anthology Dr. Terror's House of Horrors [1965]) and editor Rod Nelson-Keys worked with short ends to cobble together a persuasive setpiece, in which plumber hero Dale is shown up by vengeance-minded heroine Angela Douglas. Not nearly as flint-hearted as her character, Douglas (also making her series debut with Carry on Cowboy) reportedly had to down a double brandy to film her one song, and be pushed out in front of the camera by costar Joan Sims. The popularity of the Carry On films created schisms within Peter Rogers Productions, fracturing loyalties and dividing the team. With the change in distributors after the horror spoof Carry on Screaming (1966) from Anglo-Amalgamated to the Rank Organization, the series brooked copyright issues related to its brand, the result being that three films - Don't Lose Your Head (1966), Follow the Legion (1967), and Up the Khyber (1968) - were released without the identifying prefix (and, later, with all proprietary issues sorted out, retitled for the sake of continuity). Time and tide would have a more deleterious effect on the series. The increasing permissiveness of cinema through the decade and into the next would render redundant the franchise's reliance on innuendo and wordplay, while the retirement or deaths of key players stripped later Carry On films of recognizable personality. Stage and TV spinoffs followed but the series was suspended after Carry on Emmanuelle (1978), the thirtieth go-round. An expensive reboot, Carry on Columbus (1992), drew critical jeers but out-grossed the combined take of both John Glen's Christopher Columbus: The Discovery and Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise, released the same year. Producer: Peter Rogers Director: Gerald Thomas Writer: Talbot Rothwell Cinematography: Alan Hume Editor: Rod Nelson-Keys Art Direction: Burt Davey Music: Eric Rogers Cast: Sid James (Johnny Finger/The Rumpo Kid), Jim Dale (Marshal P. Knutt), Kenneth Williams (Judge Burke), Joan Sims (Belle), Charles Hawtrey (Big Heap), Angela Douglas (Annie Oakley), Bernard Bresslaw (Little Heap), Peter Butterworth (Doc), Percy Herbert (Charlie, the Bartender), Jon Pertwee (Sheriff Albert Earp), Sydney Bromley (Sam Houston), Davy Kaye (Undertaker). 1/15/2018 0 Comments See Pete's Christmas Online Flashx![]() Oct 14, 2013 - 2 min - Uploaded by Flashlight EntertainmentNew Walden Family Theater Movie - Premiering on Hallmark on November 8th, 2013 8/7c. 1 review of Petes Christmas Light Hanging Service 'I decided to have the professionals do my lighting this year and Pete and his Christmas elves took care of it all. Petes Christmas Light Hanging and Decorations offers a wide array of services in regards to seasonal light displays. Despite the unique quality of each decorative project, our services can be loosely grouped into two categories: Residential: Pete and his elves will trim trees on your lot, outline the lines of your home, and basically add a touch of holiday spirit to any existing fixture that warrants attention. It’s easy to go too far with any decorative effort, but we have the experience to maximize the visual quality of your display without sacrificing taste and subtlety. Business: Pete and his elves have worked with scores of businesses, ranging from small companies to strip malls. Much like residential work, no two situations are exactly the same, but our expertise will allow us to maximize your decorative efforts and to minimize your costs. Specialties Petes Christmas Light Hanging Service of San Francisco specializes in hanging, installing, and taking down Christmas lights and decorations in and around your home. Customers must provide their own lights and decorations. History Established in 2010. This is a seasonal business that operates during November, December, and January. Comedy A put-upon teen finds himself reliving the same miserable Christmas day over and over again. Find a Peter Lawrence (5) - Old Pete's Christmas Story first pressing or reissue. Complete your Peter Lawrence (5) collection. Shop Vinyl and CDs. 'Pete's Christmas Caper' is the forty-fifth episode of House of Mouse, and the series' first. Find out more about the cast of the Hallmark Channel Original Movie 'Pete's Christmas,' starring Bruce Dern, Zachary Gordon, and Bailee Madison. Amazon.com: Pete's Christmas: Zachary Gordon, Molly Parker, Bailee Madison, Bruce Dern, Nisha Ganatra: Movies & TV. “Pete's Christmas” (which premieres on the Hallmark Channel on Friday Nov. 8 at 8/7C) has several strengths, starting with the cast. Initially, Pete (Zachary Gordon) is such a mopey doormat that I found it aggravating. He lets himself get pushed around without even speaking up about it. He grows as a. Filmed in nine countries and five continents over four years, 'This Changes Everything' is an epic attempt to re-imagine the challenge of climate change. This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein - The most important book yet from the author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, a brilliant explanation. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate is Naomi Klein's fourth book; it was published in 2014 by Simon & Schuster. In it, Klein argues that the climate crisis cannot be addressed in the current era of neoliberal market fundamentalism, which encourages profligate consumption and has resulted in mega-mergers. This Changes Everything has 10903 ratings and 1277 reviews. Chris said: Naomi's Klein's This Changes Everything is absolutely essential for understandi. Aug 26, 2015 Inspired by Naomi Klein’s international non-fiction bestseller. Filmed over 211 days in nine countries and five. ![]() Forget everything you think you know about global warming. It's not about carbon – it's about capitalism. The good news is that we can seize this crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better. In her most provocative book yet, Naomi Klein, author of the global bestsellers The Shock Doctrine and No Logo, exposes the myths that are cloudi Forget everything you think you know about global warming. It's not about carbon – it's about capitalism. The good news is that we can seize this crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better. In her most provocative book yet, Naomi Klein, author of the global bestsellers The Shock Doctrine and No Logo, exposes the myths that are clouding climate debate. You have been told the market will save us, when in fact the addiction to profit and growth is digging us in deeper every day. You have been told it's impossible to get off fossil fuels when in fact we know exactly how to do it – it just requires breaking every rule in the 'free-market' playbook. You have also been told that humanity is too greedy and selfish to rise to this challenge. In fact, all around the world, the fight back is already succeeding in ways both surprising and inspiring. It's about changing the world, before the world changes so drastically that no one is safe. Either we leap – or we sink. This Changes Everything is a book that will redefine our era. I just finished reading Naomi Klein’s book and saw your request for a different perspective/approach. I would recommend anything by Alex Epstein, I just finished reading Naomi Klein’s book and saw your request for a different perspective/approach. I would recommend anything by Alex Epstein, particularly his book, “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels”. Also, search YouTube for his talk at Wellesley College last year and Bethel University (on the concept of energy poverty) just a few weeks ago. Wellesley: Bethel University: His method of thinking is fundamentally different from Klein’s and consequently his conclusions are different. Here’s a breakdown/summary of his method of thinking about energy (note: his book and lectures on YouTube have far more clarity and precision that what I’m writing here): 1. Think big picture about all forms of energy (look at all the pros and cons of each form of energy). Particularly today, there is a fundamental bias when discussing energy alternatives; we tend to focus on only the negatives for some energy types and only on the positives for others. For example, with fossil fuels we tend to focus on (actual & speculative) environmental consequences such as resource depletion, pollution, and climate change. However, there is hardly any discussion with regard to, say, ground contamination that is prevalent with wind and solar extraction processes. As a second example, with regard to fossil fuels, there is almost zero discussion about the enormous benefits that cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy has on human life and flourishing. Energy is used to feed the machines that farm our food, run our hospitals, clean our water, build our structures that keep us safe from climate, etc. The more cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy is, the better we can make our environment. There are over one billion people without any electricity today (that’s the equivalent to the population of Canada, the U.S., and Europe combined having no electricity). To ignore the positives and to only look at the negatives of a particular energy like fossil fuels shows biased thinking, which can lead to errors in our conclusions. 2. Standard of Value. Epstein argues that what can happen all the time in society is that people get distracted by goals that they think should be their priority and that have nothing to do with human well-being or even contradict it. Societies can do really destructive things ultimately because they have a goal that is an anti-human goal. He argues that the green movement’s standard of value (the standard they use to judge things as good or bad, moral or immoral) is NOT consistent with human well-being or human flourishing. Rather, the green’s goal is minimizing human impact. They look at any action and judge it as good or moral not based on its positive effect on human life but rather if the action has minimal to no impact on the planet. Adopting the green’s standard of value would lead you to oppose, in any given decade, whatever is the most practical form of energy (because it will logically have the most impact on nature) even if billions of human beings need this energy to create a safe living environment. Climate change is not liberal propaganda There is only one truth you need to know - from this book, from this review: Denying climate change is profitable, and as long as it remains profitable, the environment degrades. It will get to a point of no return. Do you want to do something now voluntarily or be forced to do something later, when it’s probably too late? “In the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civiliz Climate change is not liberal propaganda There is only one truth you need to know - from this book, from this review: Denying climate change is profitable, and as long as it remains profitable, the environment degrades. It will get to a point of no return. Do you want to do something now voluntarily or be forced to do something later, when it’s probably too late? “In the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.” Fossil fuel companies are among the most profitable and they are destroying the planet on the fast track enabled by lobbyists and politicians, because it’s more economical (and profitable) for them to do so than to change what they are doing. Do you want to give BP a dollar so you can drive a Suburban, or do you want to deny BP that dollar (or cut it back to.20 cents) and drive a hybrid? These choices are ours to make and the only way the fossil fuel companies will hear us is economically, because they don’t care about us ecologically. Corporations whose primary objective are profits cannot be allowed to influence decisions about the PLANET. Poor nations suffer because rich nations pollute. When things get bad, the poor nations will be the first to go. “Media commentators speak of ‘compassion fatigue’, as if empathy, and not fossil fuels was the finite resource.” We are living beyond our environmental budget, and the bill is coming due. It’s hard to write a review of this book without discussion how you feel about the topic. How you process the information. This book is, to some degree, preaching to the choir. Klein is radical, and this book is no holds barred. Right-wing Americans aren’t going to read this and suddenly say “Oh, wow, I get it now. My bad.” If we go down party lines, only 50%(ish) of Americans believe climate change is something which needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the “other” 50%(ish) control corporations and lobbyists. Better planet, one way or another, results in lower profits. Or a complete breakdown of certain industries. Cheap goods from China? Bad for the environment, good for Wal-Mart. You could see why Wal-Mart (as an example) would want to deny climate change. You know why the sky in China is brown? So we can have cheap goods. And guess what? It’s not entirely China’s fault. Every time we buy some tchotchke, pan, coffee mug, electronic device “made in China” we are contributing to climate change. We need to consume less, and we need to consume more thoughtfully - Buy local (do we really need asparagus which traveled 7,500 miles?) Think about the corporations you support and where your goods are coming from. Corporations are making deliberate decisions for profit which hasten climate change. This is a book for people who want to understand the economics of climate change. Who want to make educated buying decisions. Saving the planet isn’t just about biking to work one day a week, it’s thinking about where and how you spend your money. I have read to of Klein's other books and will admit none of them read as well as Shock Doctrine. This Changes Everything reads more like a thesis than a marketed book. Nearly half of the book is documentation and source material. If Klein says it, she backs it up. My thoughts: The problem is not so much capitalism, but what capitalism has become. Capitalism has had its problems from sweatshops to slavery. America prides itself on being a capitalist nation, but that in itself is a misnomer. Road I have read to of Klein's other books and will admit none of them read as well as Shock Doctrine. This Changes Everything reads more like a thesis than a marketed book. Nearly half of the book is documentation and source material. If Klein says it, she backs it up. My thoughts: The problem is not so much capitalism, but what capitalism has become. Capitalism has had its problems from sweatshops to slavery. America prides itself on being a capitalist nation, but that in itself is a misnomer. Roads, police, air space, food, education, snow removal, water and sewage are all controlled by one of the several layers of government and paid for by public funds. Many people hate socialism, unless it is their water, their children's education, their roads with potholes. Klein's view of capitalism is the current system we are experiencing. Not to sound archaic but the system was much more local in the past. Local areas provided are fairly closed loop. You bought something and you expected it to last. You visited bakers, butchers, and farmers markets. This system worked well until people found that bigger was better. Bigger stores meant cheaper prices. Chains grew Walmart came into play. Things still went ok because things were still made at home. The next step was imports, which were cheaper, but not produced at home -- this cost jobs. America started to think free trade might not be in its interest. Protective tariffs tried to save industry, but industry moved overseas. WTO and NAFTA came about to insure free (or fair) trade. The move was to globalization. This was the system of efficiency. Let each nation build what it builds best and trade. Win-win for everyone. The problem with increased efficiency is there are much more finished goods being produced everyone bought what they needed. What to do after everyone has what they need? How many televisions, cars, or pairs of shoes does one person need? Advertise, make cosmetic changes, create a want and when that doesn't work planned obsolesce. More manufacturing, more power consumption, more cars, and a new cell phone every two years. More waste, more coal power plants. It's ok to be poor, you have an Iphone. The system puts a strain on the planet. Ninety-seven percent of the scientist agree that man made climate change is real. The dissent does not present much of a case, except for things like if you live in Montana global warming will give better crop yields and longer growing seasons. It is mostly the poor that will need to adapt because the poor live in hot climates. (This Texas resident really questions that logic). A big part of the problem is the politicization of the problem. In the 1990s, both parties recognized the problem. Newt Gingrich spoke on needing to change our ways. That has all changed and the issue has become partisan, much like school vouchers or tax cuts. Climate change, however, cannot be legislated away. If science is right, there will be a tipping point where no matter what we do, we won't be able to fix, stop, or slow climate change. When countries move to become green they are attacked. In 2010 United States challenged China wind power program because it was protectionist. Likewise, the Indian Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission was challenged because it encouraged local industry. Even more outrageous was the US challenge against Quebec legislation banning fracking. It was challenged on the grounds that it cut off gas resources to potential industries. These actions may sound a bit odd, but it is little different from colonization. National sovereignty is becoming a thing of the past. Mass transportation systems are another topic mentioned in cutting greenhouse gasses. America calls investing in public transportation subsidies, but using tax money to build new roads is called an investment. Change can come, but it needs to be a movement. Slavery was not crisis for the American elites, until abolition became a movement. Civil rights was not an issue for many until Northerners saw the dogs and fire hoses turned on American citizens. The First Nation peoples of Canada are making progress in stopping pipelines, tar fields, and mining on their lands. It seems to be making a difference. Klein uses environmental issues to attack the 'capitalism' we have today. This book is filled with documented information. The reading can be a bit dry and even burdensome at times but well worth the read. Klein tackles both the environment (and she does not hesitate to call out the failures of environmental organizations) and the economy. This Changes Everything is a call to remember when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. This changes everything. I wish it did. I suppose you have to be quite anti-capitalist to even pick this up. The title certainly makes clear Naomi Klein's view, by pitting capitalism against the climate. I completely agree. There is a LOT of ground covered in this book and an extensive amount of research. At times it became a bit too much and I was unclear what it's intentions were. I wanted a simpler solution, when of course there isn't one. Yet there were many great ideas and examples of how g This changes everything. I wish it did. I suppose you have to be quite anti-capitalist to even pick this up. The title certainly makes clear Naomi Klein's view, by pitting capitalism against the climate. I completely agree. There is a LOT of ground covered in this book and an extensive amount of research. At times it became a bit too much and I was unclear what it's intentions were. I wanted a simpler solution, when of course there isn't one. Yet there were many great ideas and examples of how grassroots communities ARE working for the good of the climate. Which is usually in opposition to the global energy companies whose incentive is to make money. Then make some more. Did I learn anything new? Yes, I learnt a lot. Not only about climate change, why it's A REAL PROBLEM and how this will affect everyone (no not hotter summers, yippee). I discovered more about why we're being pushed into extreme energy sources, what governments are(n't) doing about it and the roles ecological and green organisations play to help. I read about problems encountered by people who really do WANT TO HELP and how easy it is for their good intentions to be turned in another direction. I read a lot of things that made me angry. I expected multinational companies to be making big profits for themselves. I less expected them to be ignoring laws and legislature, simply because they have money and time on their side, to strip the earth of resources before communities can make LEGITIMATE claims through the courts. By which time it's too late to put the resources back in the ground. Is it such a novel idea just to keep them there? I think more people are beginning to think this way. Most populations don't want to live next to a nuclear plant, they don't want oil drilling in their back yard, or fracking on their doorstep. Demonstrations at ground level have stopped some of these things from happening and they're slowly pushing back the tide of these last wave extractions. More needs to happen of course. Saving one area at a time with protests is not enough and that's where some of the bigger ideas of this book come into play. Living in a more co-operative society, where that literally does what it says. Changing the global dominance of the way the world runs, when it's to the detriment of local jobs, resources, people, animals and land. Yet, I don't see that things will change. For things to be implemented as Naomi Klein suggests there would need to be a huge rethink on everyday life and a return to a simpler time. For a start, more growing, making and buying of local goods, rather than buying products that have flown halfway across the world because someone else can produce them cheaper. Free trade sounds like a positive thing, but it can also work against us. We're running out of resources to ship these goods back and forth across the world and if we continue down this path of mass consumption things will eventually come to a head. Coal, oil and gas aren't finite resources, they will run out. By which time it will be too late to start mass investment of real green alternatives. That needs to be happening right now. If we wait another 50 or 100 years too much damage will have been done, which can't be magically fixed. More people will live in land stripped communities, or be displaced from rising sea levels, or suffer from repeated famines due to crop failures. The west won't be exempt either, with increased natural disasters in the way of heat waves and forest fires, or extreme hurricanes. Perhaps in the future there will be an even more two tier society, with the rich living in air conditioned, flood defended, earthquake resistant structures. While the poor languish outside of these areas. Think hurricane Katrina style disaster on a global scale, year on year. Or your favourite dystopian novels come true. So what if all of this is wrong? What if the 97 percent of scientists who tell us global warming is happening, are actually mistaken? What if it isn't all our fault, it's actually a fluctuation of earth's natural temperatures and there isn't really a problem. Well, in this case, as Naomi Klein says, we'll just have made the world a fairer, better place for everyone, for no reason at all. What a shame that would be. I wish someone had taught me to question capitalism before college. This past year at university has made me so weary of capitalism and its greed-based consequences, and Naomi Klein's brilliant This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate has persuaded me even more. While I do not claim expertise on the topics of environmentalism or economics, I still must say: it is my responsibility, and our responsibility, to protect this earth we live on. Klein does a thorough and effective job of exp I wish someone had taught me to question capitalism before college. This past year at university has made me so weary of capitalism and its greed-based consequences, and Naomi Klein's brilliant This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate has persuaded me even more. While I do not claim expertise on the topics of environmentalism or economics, I still must say: it is my responsibility, and our responsibility, to protect this earth we live on. Klein does a thorough and effective job of explaining how capitalism contributes to climate change, and while does a better job than I could on breaking down how she does it, I want to include a relevant: 'By posing climate change as a battle between capitalism and the planet, I am not saying anything that we don't already know. The battle is already under way, but right now capitalism is winning hands down. It wins every time the need for economic growth is used as an excuse for putting off climate action yet again, or for breaking emission reduction commitments already made. It wins when Greeks are told that their only path out of economic crisis is to open up their beautiful seas to high-risk oil and gas drilling. It wins when Canadians are told our only hope of not ending up like Greece is to allow our boreal forests to be flayed so we can access the semisold bitumen from the Alberta tar sands. It wins when a park in Istanbul is slotted for demolition to make way for yet another shopping mall. It wins when parents in Beijing are told that sending their wheezing kids to school in pollution masks decorated to look like cute cartoon characters is an acceptable price for economic progress. It wins every time we accept that we have only bad choices available to us: austerity of extraction, poisoning or poverty.' Amidst several striking points, I most appreciate Klein's emphasis on valuing nurturing and regeneration over domination and extractivism. As someone who researches and thinks a lot about gender, I see this struggle play out between the 'masculine' urge to destroy and to practice aggression the 'feminine' urge to heal and to protect. I wish we as a society cared more about caring instead of profit, because that would help the environment and it may have prevented the incompetent Donald Trump from becoming President. With the awful Donald Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, we need to fast. A quote that reflects my sentiments in this paragraph, about how we should question what we prioritize in society: ' Now, I realize that this can all sound apocalyptic - as if reducing emissions requires economic crises that result in mass suffering. But that seems so only because we have an economic system that fetishizes GDP growth above all else, regardless of the human or ecological consequences, while failing to place value on those things that most of us cherish above all - a decent standard of living, a measure of feature security, and our relationships with one another. So what Anderson and Bows-Larkin are really saying is that there is still time to avoid catastrophic warming, but not within the rules of capitalism as they are currently constructed. Which is surely the best argument there has ever been for changing those rules.' Overall, a dense and important book about an urgent topic in contemporary society. I am genuinely so afraid of the suffering future generations will have to experience because of our negligence, and at the same time I am hopeful that we can lessen their burden if we mobilize now. Please join the fight for climate justice, with me and so many others. One giant eye-roll You make me facepalm, Naomi Klein. ' As our boat rocked [in the Louisiana Gulf Coast delta] I had the distinct feeling that we were suspended not in water, but in amniotic fluid, immersed in a massive multi-species miscarriage.' If you want to change people's minds - right-wing, die-hard meritocracy-spouting capitalist human minds - you can't talk like this and expect them to listen. I am left with the firm belief that Klein's purpose in writing this book was to simply sell a lot o One giant eye-roll You make me facepalm, Naomi Klein. ' As our boat rocked [in the Louisiana Gulf Coast delta] I had the distinct feeling that we were suspended not in water, but in amniotic fluid, immersed in a massive multi-species miscarriage.' If you want to change people's minds - right-wing, die-hard meritocracy-spouting capitalist human minds - you can't talk like this and expect them to listen.¹ I am left with the firm belief that Klein's purpose in writing this book was to simply sell a lot of books, and not to engage in a serious unpicking of capitalism, or, kinda crucially, outlining practicable steps as to how she envisions a post-capitalist future might, you know, work. It's fitting that Klein closes the book asking how Alexis Tsipras² will answer to history 'knocking on [his] door.' We already have that answer: by being forced by the EU, the ECB, and the IMF to cave on his to dismantle austerity, utterly failing to achieve a debt write-down, and then spinning it as a victory. To pay for the This is what is wrong with the realities of late-era capitalism, and it has nothing to do with metaphors of floating in amniotic fluid. ¹ this kind of writing is so counterproductive that it actually gives credence to the conspiracy theory that Klein is in the pay of big oil. ² The Greek opposition leader at the time Klein wrote the book: now Greece's Prime Minister. Believing is Not Enough Naomi Klein believes that the inequality of wealth and power in the world is unjust and that it should be redistributed more fairly. The problem with this book is not that she wants redistribution; it is that she believes in it too much. She filters all her information about the world through this moral lens, which results in simplistic and misleading conclusions. She describes this clearly when talking about other believers. She explains the tendency of some conservatives Believing is Not Enough Naomi Klein believes that the inequality of wealth and power in the world is unjust and that it should be redistributed more fairly. The problem with this book is not that she wants redistribution; it is that she believes in it too much. She filters all her information about the world through this moral lens, which results in simplistic and misleading conclusions. She describes this clearly when talking about other believers. Klein has every reason to be depressed about the way governments the world over are relinquishing their responsibilities when it comes to air, water, and land pollution. Though she admits to faltering in looking forward to the future we have left for our children, in the end she does not quail: she comes to see that there is a glimmer of hope that humans might actually slow or stop other humans from destroying our habitat, and the habitat of other species on the planet. In fact, our salvation ma Klein has every reason to be depressed about the way governments the world over are relinquishing their responsibilities when it comes to air, water, and land pollution. Though she admits to faltering in looking forward to the future we have left for our children, in the end she does not quail: she comes to see that there is a glimmer of hope that humans might actually slow or stop other humans from destroying our habitat, and the habitat of other species on the planet. In fact, our salvation may only be possible if the electorate, the populace, refuse to accept what we are being offered by our governments and the corporations “serving our needs.” Oh, what a thing man isbut Klein’s concludes that “humanity is not hopelessly selfish and greedy—the image ceaselessly sold to us by everything from reality shows to neoclassical economics.” Climate change is not merely about climate: Klein explains how it has always has been and always will be about social justice. It isn’t about the politicians or corporations, really, any more, it is about us, though it is true that corporations “have become the authors of the laws under which they operateIn fact, current trade and investment rules provide legal grounds for foreign corporations to fight virtually any attempt by governments to restrict the exploitation of fossil fuels, particularly once a carbon deposit has attracted investment and extraction has begun. At every stage our actions are marked by a lack of respect for the powers we are unleashing – a certainty, or at least a hope, that the nature we have turned to garbage, and the people we have treated like garbage, will not come back to haunt usThis book is a brick, a great heavy block with which you can shatter screens of lies and greenwash. Nine months after reading it, I still remember parts of it so well that I'm reviewing without properly rereading, so please accept my apologies for my bodg At every stage our actions are marked by a lack of respect for the powers we are unleashing – a certainty, or at least a hope, that the nature we have turned to garbage, and the people we have treated like garbage, will not come back to haunt usThis book is a brick, a great heavy block with which you can shatter screens of lies and greenwash. Nine months after reading it, I still remember parts of it so well that I'm reviewing without properly rereading, so please accept my apologies for my bodgy job (and hold the jokes about gestation please), but I will reread at some point not just to refresh my memory but as therapy for burn out and political despair. It starts off with the bad news – so devastatingly sad I sobbed for all of us everywhere, humans and non-humans, all but doomed to a future of environmental devastation, so much so that a stranger (but fellow northener) gave up her seat on the tube for me 'you look like you need this more than I do, love'. The next day I was chuckling under my breath and punching the air with a suppressed 'Yes!' For the victories of Blockadia and PEOPLE POWER generally against extractivist corporations and their scary supporters in state power. The keystone idea here is that the simple reason we're failing to do what we need to do and stop burning the damn fossil fuels already is that the things we need to do are in fundamental conflict with deregulated capitalism. I am in 100% agreement with this. We have the technology, we have the knowledge, we have the desire and wherewithall to help each other out, make sacrifices, work together and all that, we just have this bonkers system that is wired to kill us all. The fact that an elite minority currently has a stranglehold on the world economy is, in Klein's view, just really really bad timing. If climate scientists had got in a decade earlier, we'd be fixed up good by now, and if the whole ozone layer thing had been a little bit later, when governments can get sued for banning dangerous products, we'd probably be hiding behind specially coated windows and only going out at night. Witness the UK's current PM unbanning bee-killing neonicotinoids this year. Activists are working overtime on stuff like this because it gets harder and harder to win through legal channels while corporate forces crunch ahead tearing down regulatory structures designed to protect people from their depredations. Klein describes the past quarter-century for the corporate globalisation process as 'zooming from victory to victory' But this is just from the intro, Klein goes deep and wide, crafting a thorough, unsparing philosophically rich analysis of the ideology of extractivism (which is associated with rightist groups now, but has an appalling history of support on the left too) and its effects, studded with illuminating case studies (like the island of Nauru). Colonialism is an extractivist ideology and practice – a response to the climate crisis must centre decolonisation. Klein explores the 'magical thinking' of bad solutions. These include the 'merger of big business and Big Green' when environmentalist groups attempt to 'translate [our arguments] into profits, earnings, productivity, and economic incentives for industry'. Some supposedly environmental protection groups even had their own fossil fuel contracts as well as being funded by Shell, BP et al and investing their funds in such companies. This links to the greenwash around fracking, billed as a 'bridge' to cleaner energy, which is pure bullshit – let it be cried from the rooftops please - renewables are now efficient and affordable enough to supply all the world's energy needs and all new investment in energy infrastructure needs to be put into installing them. Carbon credits get slammed here too, obviously. Next up on the block are 'messiahs' like Richard Branson, who made a great song and dance about going green and throwing money behind green tech after watching that film by Al Gore. But he didn't actually do anything, just throw a bit of money at lower-emission aircraft fuel development and carry on as before. Carrying on as before just isn't going to be an option. This links into the geoengineering strand, which is the scariest thing ever. Klein calls it 'our culture's most powerful form of magical thinking'. The main idea discussed is that of dimming the sun with particulate emissions of some kind, so that the earth can cool down a bit while we. Carry on burning fossil fuels. The two really obvious arguments against this are that then solar power wouldn't work (Klein points out the huge environmental racism of the idea – solar is going to be the biggest power source for the global south) and that it's impossible to test the effects of such an intervention in an extremely complex system-of-systems that we don't understand very well. Of course, we could try to predict the effects, but since we can't predict the weather for more than a week into the future with any accuracy.? Klein also points out that geoengineering is always 'plan b' but we haven't actually tried plan a – just stop burning fossil fuels. There's also an insightful critique of the 'astronaut's eye view' concept of saving the planet. The earth as a fragile blue ball we have to care for like a needy child. Actually, it's we who are fragile. She urges us to look at Earth not from outer space but from the roots and soil. The hopeful leg of the book centres the residents-as-custodian perspective associated with indigenous people's beliefs and practices: love will save this place she says, people will stand up for the soil and water that nourishes them. The successes of blockadia, community movements to take local control of power generation (in Germany for instance), the wave of divestments under pressure from ordinary folks and so on speak to the potential of people power to win this, to force governments to do their job and protect people from unbridled capitalism instead of spurring it along. Put simply, fossil fuel companies have said that they will extract and burn five times more resource than scientists say the atmsphere can possibly take, then they are intent on suicide genocide ecocide on a total scale, and if we don't stop them, we and all our descendants are all dead. One of my favourite parts of the book, 'The Right to Regenerate' presents a profound insight Klein had, which she came to through the new sensitivities and concerns that her painful struggle to become pregnant had brought to her. If you would like to read an unbiased view of environmental impacts such as global warming, fracking, coal mining, oil & gas pipelines, and how all of these are intertwined with politics and capitalism, then this is The Book for you. Come to think of it, if you DON'T want to know about these things, this is definitely Your Book. I read every word and I'm now scared as hell. Environmental solutions have been prevented, but not by what I thought. I figured it was people's general lack of aware If you would like to read an unbiased view of environmental impacts such as global warming, fracking, coal mining, oil & gas pipelines, and how all of these are intertwined with politics and capitalism, then this is The Book for you. Come to think of it, if you DON'T want to know about these things, this is definitely Your Book. I read every word and I'm now scared as hell. Environmental solutions have been prevented, but not by what I thought. I figured it was people's general lack of awareness, or nonchalance, or procrastination, or avoidance. Something like that. But it's nothing like that. Regardless of what the news agencies report, most people worldwide are aware of the environment impact problems and want solutions to them. The solutions have not come (and are not coming) from most governments and definitely not from big business because the politicians and capitalists don't want their profits and sleek way of life interrupted. There is also a prevailing view among the world's wealthy that poor people and people of color are expendable, that our lives do not matter. Reading this book changed my life in some surprising ways. (1) I no longer donate money to environmental groups just because they claim to support the cause. I found out, in fact, that almost all of the environmental groups own stock in the very oil/gas/coal companies that they claim to oppose. One of these groups has even drilled its own oil wells! (2) I no longer believe that recycling, water conservation and changing my light bulbs are solutions to anything. We've been told to do these things to ensure our complacency by making us feel that we are doing our part to help the environment. I continue to recycle, conserve water and turn off the lights, not because these things will solve any problems but because they are the right things to do. These activities alone will make no difference in the overall outcome. The solutions lie in the development of non-extractive sources of renewable power. (3) I joined Idle No More. (4) I moved even further to the left and I didn't think there was any more room over there. (5) I'm writing this review to persuade you to read this exceptionally important book and come to your own conclusions. This is not the treatise against capitalism that some people have made it out to be, or that I was hoping for. I'm honestly pretty torn on what I think about it. On the one hand, Klein's focus on direct action is both necessary and inspiring, and I think this is an important step in challenging liberals to step outside their ineffective comfort zone of signing petitions, writing the occasional check to a green org, and calling their absolutely useless representatives who will never, ever listen This is not the treatise against capitalism that some people have made it out to be, or that I was hoping for. I'm honestly pretty torn on what I think about it. On the one hand, Klein's focus on direct action is both necessary and inspiring, and I think this is an important step in challenging liberals to step outside their ineffective comfort zone of signing petitions, writing the occasional check to a green org, and calling their absolutely useless representatives who will never, ever listen to them. On the other hand, I was disappointed that despite the title, she doesn't dig deep enough on the subject of capitalism. She makes a lot of really, really great points, but falls short of arriving at the conclusions that logically stem from those points. I think she actually might be doing some damage by dancing carefully around the subject of capitalism. By referring to it constantly as 'deregulated capitalism', she has actually given people the false sense that capitalism itself is not the problem. She lays waste to major parts of capitalist theory then gives those who aren't open-minded enough to really question capitalism an escape route. After reading a number of reviews in which people flat out say that she shows that 'capitalism itself isn't the problem, we just need to regulate it', it's painfully clear that her treatment of capitalism was too soft and that the right message isn't getting through to people. For starters, this is less focused on capitalism and more on the human desire to conquer nature as opposed to learning to live in harmony with nature, which is all well and good, but I felt like she repeated this point way too much. In close to 500 pages of writing, she manages to frequently rephrase the same points while failing to expand on others that are very important. For example, she spends a whopping 2 paragraphs each on the food system and militarism, even though they represent a large portion of overall emissions and are huge climate-linked problems we need to tackle. Her points on these subjects were very compelling and I got really excited when she got to them, only to be disappointed when she quickly moved on to something else. It would also be nice if she at least touched on the subject of resource depletion. I know that it is considered a separate topic from climate change, but it shouldn't be. Both climate change and resource depletion are the result of a constantly growing, profit-driven economic system that knows no bounds. If the goal of the book is to present evidence that capitalism is incompatible with stopping climate change (I'm beginning to wonder if that really was her goal here), why not put one more giant nail in the coffin? I personally think it's an extremely compelling argument that even in the absence of climate change, capitalism is driving us off an ecological cliff. Anyone who cares about the environment, or the fate of the human race for that matter, should also care that we are putting huge reserves of natural resources at risk of disappearing. There will be no clean energy if we use up all the nonrenewable metals to manufacture ipads and killer drones, or if we wait until oil is even harder and more expensive to extract to build out renewables. That's a very powerful, irrefutable point that she easily could have made. Furthermore, given the title, I was expecting a more detailed argument against capitalism and more discussion of possible economic alternatives. Klein does an absolutely great job of illustrating how some of the big green organizations betrayed their own goals by getting into bed with the fossil fuel industry. That is perhaps the most important points she makes. In doing so, she hits on a critical point regarding the corrupting nature of profit-driven markets. She does a fantastic job of explaining how the profit motive is failing us. However, she stops short of reaching the conclusion that if the profit motive doesn't produce what's best for society, if it actually produces a lot of things that hurt us, then we need to move away from it. It would have made sense at this point to discuss cooperatively owned and managed businesses, cooperative networks/markets, or participatory democracy/economics. It would have made sense to discuss ANY alternatives to capitalism at this point, but she didn't. I can't tell if this was a choice on her part to be soft on the issue of capitalism for fear of pushing people too hard, or if Klein herself still hasn't overcome her own cognitive dissonance. After all, how else can a person discuss how growth is killing us and how the profit motive only leads to greed without calling for a different system that doesn't center on those things? Taxing polluters and regulating emissions, while an important step in the right direction, is not a solution to these particular problems. Actually, the more I think about it, the more confused I am by her conclusions. She demonstrates how destructive capitalism is, both environmentally and socially (she even discusses the colonial nature of capitalism), but doesn't seem to go beyond the typical liberal solutions of taxing and regulating. She calls for radical, direct action to demand a transition away from fossil fuels, but not for labor organizing to demand any of the economic changes that she says we need (but doesn't really talk about). I was surprised that in a book that confronts capitalism and calls for a 'Green New Deal' there was no discussion at all about the labor organizing and strikes that brought us the first New Deal. I think this was a glaring omission. Another very important point Klein makes is that decentralized, local clean power networks are a necessary part of the solution that will be fought tooth and nail by profit-seeking utility companies because such systems aren't profitable for them. The type of decentralized system she proposes, with public ownership and oversight, is actually the basis of what a new economy might look like, but again, she stops short of making this connection. She even asserts the need for economic planning (which is what has so many conservatives all riled up), but without getting into more detail on how this might be accomplished in an equitable, truly democratic way, she is likely scaring off a lot of people by giving the impression that we should trust our completely corrupt leaders to make those decisions for us. In general, I feel like all her references to a new economic paradigm are too vague. She could have easily made these connections, between decentralized systems and democratic management, and pointed people toward a real way forward, but instead, she leaves us with one vague notion after another. I didn't expect her to delve deeply into any particular economic solutions (there are already entire books dedicated to the subject), but she should have at least mentioned some. People are getting tired of hearing that we need change without presenting specific ideas of what that might entail. And without specific examples of what it might look like, promoting economic planning sounds an awful lot like central planning, which scares people for good reason. I get the impression that Klein herself has only begun to realize the systemic problems of capitalism and may have written this book before she was adequately prepared to do so. Even after describing one way after another in which the market fails us, Klein falls right back into the market fallacies by saying things like this: 'It's true that the market is great at generating technological innovation.' No, that's not 'true' at all. It's a belief. It's not a fact. And I expect someone who does research-based writing to know the difference. While she goes on to talk about how the market also drives a lot of terrible behavior, there is no need to walk on eggshells like this. She needs to stop pretending the market is a tool that can be wielded for good, because all the evidence in the world suggests it's not. Plenty of the evidence she herself presents flies in the face of this completely unsubstantiated, ideological claim. I think she has a long way to go with her own understanding of what capitalism is and the difference between regulating it and changing the rules to create something totally new. Given that her main audience seems to be liberal environmentalists who aren't open-minded enough or brave enough to really question capitalism, I think this book could serve a useful purpose. Most people are completely brainwashed into believing that capitalism is some law of nature or god that we dare not question and I give her a lot of credit for taking on such a controversial topic. Religious-like beliefs like that are hard to chip away. People don't drastically change strong, ideological views over night and they need steps along the way. Hopefully, this provides a big step in the right direction for those people. Overall, she makes some really great points, pokes some giant holes in capitalist theory (whether she or her readers realize it or not), and offers a somewhat radical and very hopeful outlook on a subject that usually leaves people feeling utter despair. For that, I think she deserves a lot of credit. But for those who have already overcome those ideological barriers, there's nothing new here. The only exception is her discussion of Blockadia, but even that is just the latest in a long, global history of resistance movements that employ direct action. That part of the book at least left me hopeful. If someone with the reach of Naomi Klein can make an effective call for direct action and disobedience, maybe (hopefully) we will finally reach the critical mass needed to start turning things around. Pretty good but very long. As I mentioned in a status update, if the purpose of this book is to empower and inform people, why make it so bloody big? And depressing? I dreaded opening this thing up again and again- what the hell is she going to tell me next? All the while resisting so I could prep some erudite review, wholeheartedly agreeing with the whole thing and proving myself oh so very clever, courageous persistent for keeping up with her to the very end. Well, I won't! And in so doing, hop Pretty good but very long. As I mentioned in a status update, if the purpose of this book is to empower and inform people, why make it so bloody big? And depressing? I dreaded opening this thing up again and again- what the hell is she going to tell me next? All the while resisting so I could prep some erudite review, wholeheartedly agreeing with the whole thing and proving myself oh so very clever, courageous persistent for keeping up with her to the very end. Well, I won't! And in so doing, hopefully prove myself cleverer, courageouser and persistenter than anyone who did!!:P Anyways: imagine instead people said to each other- oh, there's this great book, just under 200pgs long, you can pick it up from most cash registers, tells you everything you need to know about climate change, what others are doing about it and what we can do about it too. (Hey, she could still make this book. I would advise her to do so.) But we have This. What does it change? What's everything? Oh, you know, things! It changes those! Okay, then what can I do? I'm a big Naomi Klein fan and I consider myself an environmentalist so I was quite excited to read Klein's new book on climate change. I was worried that it would be depressing -- I don't know about you but with the passing of each day and nothing being done about climate change I get more and more resigned to the fact that the planet is doomed. Frankly I don't understand why it's not a bigger deal to everyone in the world. We should all be alarmed, but instead our heads our buried in the collec I'm a big Naomi Klein fan and I consider myself an environmentalist so I was quite excited to read Klein's new book on climate change. I was worried that it would be depressing -- I don't know about you but with the passing of each day and nothing being done about climate change I get more and more resigned to the fact that the planet is doomed. Frankly I don't understand why it's not a bigger deal to everyone in the world. We should all be alarmed, but instead our heads our buried in the collective sand. Perhaps that's because we may be past the point of doing anything as a species to save the planet from its man-made demise. Here's what NASA's Dr. James Hansen has to say about our situation: “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from [current levels] to at most 350 ppm.” Dr. James Hansen Right now we’re at 400 ppm, and we’re adding 2 ppm of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year. Unless we are able to rapidly turn that around and return to below 350 ppm this century, we risk triggering tipping points and irreversible impacts that could send climate change spinning truly beyond our control. This is not hyperbole. It's not a theory. It's not up for debate. It's science and the odds are against us. Klein's hypothesis seems to be, and I am oversimplifying it, is that only a mass social movement like what we saw in the 1960s on equal rights or during the 1800s like we saw to end slavery will we be able to move the needle to avert this crisis. In fact, she argues that our entire way of life -- our capitalist society -- will need to change in order for us to turn things around. She may be right. For as long as extractionists continue to make obscene amounts of money from fossil fuels and control the political will of nations we will be fighting a losing battle. Klein's book was depressing as hell. As she outlines all of the things that are wrong with our systems (political, social and otherwise) it becomes harder and harder to imagine humankind has the will or the desire to stand up to the status quo. Sure, she points out plenty of isolated cases of people rising up to stop pipelines or mining operations around the world. She calls this 'blockadia' and suggests this is the start of a worldwide movement to fight for the planet. She makes a compelling case that the world's indigenous peoples will possibly lead this fight because they are perhaps the most threatened by climate change and extraction. She tried to be optimistic about the future, but frankly she doesn't convince me that anything will change on a massive scale, the kind it will take to keep us from raising global temperatures beyond the 2 degree barrier that so many scientists believe will mark the tipping point. She argues as well that what we do as individuals (like recycling and using canvas bags at the grocery store) is not enough, that we need a movement to energize the masses. But Katrina didn't do it. Superstorm Sandy didn't do it. Drought hasn't done it. What will it take for the 99 percent to stand up to the thieves who are extracting us into extinction? At one point her argument made me feel like we were all in some warped Hunger Games society, but there is no Katniss Everdeen to save us from the bad guys. Who will lead us to victory? Robert Redford? Leonardo Dicaprio? I agree with Klein's premise, that we need a Marshall Plan for the planet and our economic system is designed to propagate the problems. I just don't see how we'll drag people away from the Kardashians to do anything about it. Yes, I'm a pessimist. But I haven't seen anything to show me otherwise. I'm not even sure what I can do about it. I am a good steward of my own environment, but it's not enough. And there's no global movement to join. Am I supposed to blow up fracking equipment and sabotage oil wells? I have a family -- I can't go to jail. I guess I'll continue to stand by and wait for someone, anyone, to lead us out of this mess. Indianizing [Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2013 posted revenues for $74 billion and $274 million profits. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. Is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standards at all the company's sites]. Sloppy, shallow book, whose Indianizing [Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2013 posted revenues for $74 billion and $274 million profits. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. Is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standards at all the company's sites]. Sloppy, shallow book, whose intellectual shortcomings are topped by the celebrity-style vanity of sharing worldwide an alleged existential crisis (as the Guardian's Owen Jones puts it), brought about by maternity. Having outsourced research to two assistants (see Acknowledgements), the author does not really make an argument, but usefully reviews a number of environmental and anti-environmental movements, leaving it to the readers to wrap up. Which I'm always happy to do. What is climate action's greatest risk? As climate deniers aptly and presciently grasped, it is the inevitable shift from a centralized and hierarchical economic model based on fossil fuels to a distributed and flatter one based on renewables, which we can call 'indianized'. This shift will be matched by a more equitable distribution of income and rights. All the interests vested in the current (centralized and hierarchical) model oppose the shift (geoengineers and green billionaires stand out for originality). To accelerate the transition, struggles are required, possibly modeled after indigenous peoples' decade-long campaigns. Where the book is weakest is in its inability to distinguish between struggle and struggle, both contemporary and historical. The author's analysis of the abolitionist and civil rights movements is inaccurate and simplistic. The haste with which she blesses the divestment movement born on the most exclusive US campuses, worrisome. Clearly, now a mom, the author has decided that class is no longer an issue. Moral sentiments can replace it, and all our problems are just a matter of ethics succumbing to greed. But capitalism is a class machine, by definition, from the outset. As the author points out, based on the work of promising scholar Andreas Malm, capitalism is a production system whose aim is to constantly gain the upper hand on nature and workers through technology and technocracy for its functioning and development. The author however does not draw any conclusion from this consideration, preferring to contemplate the moving beauty of (classless) 'people' joining forces against greedy corporations (classless too in their capacity as self-directed drones) to protect Naomi Klein's children and grandchildren's planet. Effective climate action is probably based on taking, unlike Naomi Klein, an a-moral stance towards fossil fuel capitalism, which now can be simply understood as the root cause for dangerous climate change and as such has to be discarded. It is a technically focused, organizational restructuring, to be carried out in cold blood (as David in discards the dangerous HAL 9000 and super-humanly moves on). The resulting indianized economy can be a prosperous one. We need books that think through the indianization of our energy, financial and industrial systems, leaving to climate deniers to deal with the emotions of an elitist loss. Best book I have read this year. Couldn't put it down. I highlighted 95 passages, many for me to dig into further. Not only does it savage the existing fossil fuel companies in detail, from pollution to human rights abuse, but also hits futurists and billionaire do-gooders. Which is all pretty standard for a book on climate change, though did cover some new areas for me: abuses of the ETS, under-reported adverse impact of oil spills on young animal populations that are screwing them over years la Best book I have read this year. Couldn't put it down. I highlighted 95 passages, many for me to dig into further. Not only does it savage the existing fossil fuel companies in detail, from pollution to human rights abuse, but also hits futurists and billionaire do-gooders. Which is all pretty standard for a book on climate change, though did cover some new areas for me: abuses of the ETS, under-reported adverse impact of oil spills on young animal populations that are screwing them over years later, big green dealmaking. The standout though is the second half, covering all the successes of movements around the world in actually fighting back. Inspiring, and gives me hope. *Even if* the world wasn't warming, the community costs and environmental destruction caused by fossil fuel extraction is unacceptable. This Changes Everything is one of those books which has been discussed so thoroughly I feel as though I can add little to it. So I'll keep my remarks to be even more brief than usual. The main question which Klein leaves unanswered is how much the individual will have to reduce their consumption of energy. This is also necessary, and also difficult to convince people. Who would want to give up their cars or air conditioning? How can we motivate people to do what it takes? When history knocks, wil This Changes Everything is one of those books which has been discussed so thoroughly I feel as though I can add little to it. So I'll keep my remarks to be even more brief than usual. The main question which Klein leaves unanswered is how much the individual will have to reduce their consumption of energy. This is also necessary, and also difficult to convince people. Who would want to give up their cars or air conditioning? How can we motivate people to do what it takes? When history knocks, will they answer? Every human struggle needs an image of a better future for supporters to rally around, but it’s never enough to simply know where we want to end up. The accomplishment of profound societal change, if sought peacefully, also demands a set of linguistic and psychological frames revolutionaries can use to inform, impassion, and ultimately persuade people to join the cause of converting aspirations into economic and political realities. Additionally, successful movements require hard data and concre Every human struggle needs an image of a better future for supporters to rally around, but it’s never enough to simply know where we want to end up. The accomplishment of profound societal change, if sought peacefully, also demands a set of linguistic and psychological frames revolutionaries can use to inform, impassion, and ultimately persuade people to join the cause of converting aspirations into economic and political realities. Additionally, successful movements require hard data and concrete policy directives to substantiate their claims. Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate provides all of these for the climate movement, and will perhaps be remembered as one of the most important framing documents of a generation. This Changes Everything is both an eloquent explication of the pressing challenges of 21st century environmentalism as well as a rousing polemic against the forces that are driving us toward the edge of the climate cliff. Klein’s unapologetic moral clarity deftly circumvents a media environment stifled by cowardly attempts to feign objectivity. Rather than trying to sugarcoat her arguments so they can be easily digested by the status quo, Klein goes out of her way to emphasize that her strategy for addressing the climate problem will fly directly in the face of today’s dominant economic trends. This could be a wildly depressing book. Indeed, The Shock Doctrine was one of the most depressing works of nonfiction I’ve read. But This Changes Everything is a resoundingly hopeful document. Klein’s central message is that fixing climate change requires radical solutions that, if implemented, will not only mitigate the damage we are doing to the biosphere, but also begin to put right the most egregious sins of capitalism and globalization: “The fight against violent resource extraction and the fight for greater community control, democracy, and sovereignty are two sides of the same coin” (309, emphasis hers). This insight––that beating climate change is as much about fighting for a better world as it is about avoiding the possibility of a much harsher one––imbues Klein’s book with an infectious, ebullient energy that sways skepticism and dispels indifference. Klein starts out by explaining the global community’s collective failure to properly address climate change up to this point. Regarding climate change denial from the political right, she makes the nuanced case that conservatives actually understand better than anyone that climate change is anathema to their way of doing business, both in politics and the private sector. Conservatives must either accept radical change or deny the impetus for action: “They have come to understand that as soon as they admit that climate change is real, they will lose the central ideological battle of our time––whether we need to plan and manage our societies to reflect our goals and values, or whether that task can be left to the magic of the market” (40). Klein also exposes the failures of the left, especially the “Big Green” movement which has by and large teamed up with oil companies and abandoned the fight for meaningful carbon reforms. Many liberals have also been guilty of toothless activism by ascribing to the illusion that we can beat climate change by simply growing vegetables, driving hybrid cars and switching out a few light bulbs. Klein pulls no punches: to bring about lasting, truly sustainable change, we will all have to significantly reduce personal as well as industrial consumption. Klein is unequivocal in her assertion that incremental responses to climate change are no longer viable; given how long we’ve ignored the problem, we don’t have any non-radical solutions left on the table. Laying out her plan for action, Klein sets her sights on 2 degrees celsius––the current rise in global temperature within which climate scientists say we have a good chance of avoiding the worst case scenarios. Some claim we are already committed to a 4-6 degree increase, but Klein thinks 2 degrees is still manageable if we act fast and forcefully. Meeting this challenge will require actual and radical change resulting from the combined actions of individual communities and national governments willing to intervene in markets and dictate the terms not just of a swift transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables, but of a just transition where the rights of the globe’s most vulnerable lifeforms (human and otherwise) are taken into account. Governments, for their part, must get over the false truism that markets are best left alone and that corporations cannot be forced to pay through the nose for polluting. We cannot allow our fates to be decided by billionaire philanthropists and geoengineers toying with ecological systems they don’t fully understand, so the only other option is to harness political structures in order to appropriate and redistribute the vast wealth accumulated by corporations and individuals, especially those most responsible for carbon emissions: “It is not that ‘we’ are broke or that we lack options. It is that our political class is utterly unwilling to go where the money is (unless it’s for a campaign contribution), and the corporate class is dead set against paying its fair share[we] need to demand (and create) political leadership that is not only committed to making polluters pay for a climate-ready public sphere, but willing to revive two lost arts: long-term public planning, and saying no to powerful corporations” (119). This is not just idle talk––Klein provides plenty of data showing how the money for a global transition toward renewables for everyone (not just the first world) can be collected and put to good use. Her plan is also not an elimination of free markets, but merely a recognition that some activities and resources are too important not to be tightly regulated and made transparent for public scrutiny. All we need is the political will to get it done. No small feat, but also not a particularly high price to pay for simultaneously saving and improving our civilization. While communities are pushing for this political paradigm shift, they will also have to fight tooth and nail to resist the further extraction of fossil fuels, sometimes against overwhelming odds. Since further extraction is tantamount to giving up entirely on the 2 degree target, banding together to fight extraction wherever it arises is the most important work to be done by people living wherever oil or coal can be found. One encouraging example is the “Honor the Treaties” movement, which involves a resurgent assertion of the rights of sovereign indigenous North American nations that has provided the foundation for a particularly potent rejection of the Alberta tar sands and Keystone XL pipeline projects. This is just one of many creative strategies Klein documents to reveal how communities can keep carbon in the earth. The climate crisis, for all its horrors, can also provide the motivation and resources to knit disparate activist groups together in common cause. This Changes Everything can be read as a political and ideological companion to the work of Jeremy Rifkin and others who see capitalism as an economic system that will ultimately bring about its own marginalization. Rifkin’s recent book provides the technological and economic platform on which many of Klein’s suggestions can be put to good use. Readers looking to participate in radically new economic systems that put a premium on human capital and environmental flourishing––what Rifkin calls “the biosphere lifestyle”––are well advised to look to his works for further guidance. Klein’s passionate manifesto climaxes with her championing of the biosphere’s 'right to regenerate.' This poignant and heartfelt chapter describes Klein’s battle with her own reproductive system, and draws parallels between her personal struggle to become pregnant and the hurdles faced by myriad lifeforms that are currently running up against reproductive failure due to compromised ecosystems. “As our boat rocked in that terrible place” she writes of witnessing the aftermath of the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, “I had the distinct feeling that we were suspended not in water but in amniotic fluid, immersed in a massive multi-species miscarriage. When I learned that I too was in the early stages of creating an ill-fated embryo, I started to think of that time in the marsh as my miscarriage inside a miscarriage” (427). Very rarely do journalists draw such effective connections between depictions of disaster and relevant personal hardships; Klein’s metaphorical resonance and professional fearlessness are superb. Klein goes on to argue that saving ourselves and our world from catastrophe requires a sweeping new view: “A new kind of reproductive rights movement, one fighting not only for the reproductive rights of women, but for the reproductive rights of the planet as a wholeAll of life has the right to renew, regenerate, and heal itself” (443). This regenerative perspective excoriates the miasmic anthropocentrism that still passes for good sense in halls of human power. It is a call to arms for those willing to sacrifice and strive to achieve a more sustainable, relational lifestyle for this and future generations. Throughout this book, I tried my utmost to be skeptical, to seek out holes in Klein’s arguments and research. And while this is neither a foolproof reform plan nor a work of groundbreaking intellectual creativity, it is one of the most meaningful and courageous pieces of writing I’ve ever had the good fortune to come upon. Any quibbles I have with Klein are just drops in a sea of appreciation for the fact that writers like her are willing to do that which I am too cowardly to accomplish myself: record stories from the darkest caverns of human activity and use them to map a way back to the light. Failing to achieve a just transition away from environmental exploitation and into a better, healthier world would be a travesty in itself, but all the more so when we have books like this to help us figure out how to play our part. So, in whatever way you can, get started. “The stakes are simply too high, and time too short, to settle for anything less” (466). This review was originally published on my blog,. A lot of other reviews I've seen have been accusing Naomi Klein of being a crazy Marxist against western civilization or something, as if that's even a possible combination. My views are much more radical than hers (in my opinion anything resembling a large-scale green socialist system should only be seen as a temporary stage on the way 'back' to bioregionalism and the use of democratic technics) so I think those criticisms are completely ridiculous. What she's advocating doesn't even appear to A lot of other reviews I've seen have been accusing Naomi Klein of being a crazy Marxist against western civilization or something, as if that's even a possible combination. My views are much more radical than hers (in my opinion anything resembling a large-scale green socialist system should only be seen as a temporary stage on the way 'back' to bioregionalism and the use of democratic technics) so I think those criticisms are completely ridiculous. What she's advocating doesn't even appear to be totally socialist and she's definitely not anti-civ, although she does seem to have a hint of that sentiment. It's kind of a strange analysis actually. From the title I was expecting her to lay out some sort of proposal for a totally new system. The vast majority of the book is just a cathartic denunciation of the fossil fuel industry. Bashing these industries is fine but if environmentalists insist on constantly putting out 500 page books they need to get beyond the clever rewordings of the same things we've already heard a million times. It's nice that progressives are slowly headed in the right direction, challenging economic growth, fighting for a revival of the commons, localized production, redistribution of wealth and land, agroecological food production, etc. But they're stuck on this green city model of sustainability that has no chance of ever being sustainable. Even when acknowledging things like planned obsolescence and how much less production is really necessary to have the same standard of living if things are designed to last they still use the green jobs argument to push their ideas. It should be obvious that cutting working hours and production is the way to go but politically no mainstream group can handle that. Even when acknowledging the basic income idea (free money, potentially enough to survive on, to every adult whether they work or not) progressives still get sucked into the competition with the right-wing about which direction will give us more work to do. It's just inconsistent logic. And one of the things she says over and over is that our inability to solve the climate issue is due to 'bad timing', as if this all would have worked out if it happened earlier, when corporations had less power, or later, when corporations had gotten all possible profits from fossil energy and they decided to go green themselves because it was just an economic necessity. Yet she knows that growth imperatives are the problem and she admits that they've been with us even before capitalism. So clearly she knows it's not just a bad coincidence of timing. It just feels like she was afraid of saying anything unpopular with her fan club. After 500 pages I still don't really get what she's promoting besides the typical solar panel and wind turbine run high-tech modern middle-class fantasy world. I don't want to create the impression that this book is terrible. A lot of people will benefit from reading it. It's just disappointing that she's still sticking with such a mainstream vision of the future when she seemed so close to actually getting it. We need more people to be honest about how far from sustainable we really are. A sickening collection of lies about the science of climate change and non-solutions to the crisis Klein claims. Sept 20-21 WSJ carried an article by Steven Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science in the Obama administration, admitting the computer models Klein cites as proof are worthless. There's also no mention of the 18-year lack of any global warming, measured on the ground and by balloons and satellites. At last count, there are more than 50 explanations of the 'pause', the 'hiatus' reve A sickening collection of lies about the science of climate change and non-solutions to the crisis Klein claims. Sept 20-21 WSJ carried an article by Steven Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science in the Obama administration, admitting the computer models Klein cites as proof are worthless. There's also no mention of the 18-year lack of any global warming, measured on the ground and by balloons and satellites. At last count, there are more than 50 explanations of the 'pause', the 'hiatus' revealed more than a year ago in the NYT. Klein claims she researched this topic, but doesn't mention the NYT admission of no warming. Klein has no scientific credentials; she doesn't even have any journalistic cred (she almost finished an undergrad journalism degree). Every crazy claim by the alarmists is in this rambling mess, including the sad story of Nauru - the island whose inhabitants destroyed it for the sake of mining guano. Somehow, in Klein's fevered mind, this is the fault of CO2 emissions? Klein claims to fear that her young son - to whom the book is dedicated - will never see a moose, never see a starfish, destroyed by climate change. Never a word about the 4 million children who die annually of pulmonary disease, because their mothers cook indoors over open fires of wood and dung. Poverty and early death are worse than the phony climate change crisis Klein is milking. Klein's greed and hypocrisy make Al Gore look like Mother Teresa. Klein is right about one thing: in a capitalist economy, some people will do anything for a buck. Klein is already married to a millionaire; she has thousands from previous books. She needed this schlock? Like her knowledge of atmospheric science, that's about as deep as her knowledge of economics goes. Page after page contains the disgusting phrase'climate denier' or 'climate denialist', adapted by Gore from 'Holocaust Denier.' Coming from Klein, it's ironic, to say the least. Quite remarkable: a book about a 'crisis' that doesn't exist and that offers no solution. BTW, I'm a meteorologist with a specialization in radiative transfer; I understand the 'greenhouse effect' quite well. The heating response to CO2 is logarithmic - rises sharply, then levels off to an asymptotic value. We're long past the 'knee of the curve.' That's why there's no 'crisis.' Adding additional CO2 has no additional heating effect.And, no, I don't work for the Koch family. I can't imagine what prompted the high ratings others have awarded to this propaganda - other than ideology. The book could also be titled 'This Changes Nothing,' because only.1% of humans alive today have the native intelligence to understand why the issue of anthropogenic global climate disruption is a matter of life and death not only for humans but also for the myriad species who are our fellow travelers on planet Earth. Nevertheless, Naomi Klein sends an important message to those who have ears to hear. Increasing the GDP and facilitating consumerism in the name of saving the economy will cost us The book could also be titled 'This Changes Nothing,' because only.1% of humans alive today have the native intelligence to understand why the issue of anthropogenic global climate disruption is a matter of life and death not only for humans but also for the myriad species who are our fellow travelers on planet Earth. Nevertheless, Naomi Klein sends an important message to those who have ears to hear. Increasing the GDP and facilitating consumerism in the name of saving the economy will cost us our lives and the lives of countless other species. Capitalism fueled by the extractive tactics of those who have more dollars than sense will change the world as we know it into a strange and unpredictable place from which few will emerge alive and none undamaged. She is perhaps too sanguine in her hopes for a coalition of the oppressed that will derail the coal train of destructive capitalism and save the world, but she is absolutely right that we must all speak out against the fouling of the only nest we have by those who have money and want more, regardless of the expense to life on Earth. This should be required reading in every business school in the world and a call to action for us all. I write this on Black Friday 2014, and the irony of naming a day of rampant consumption 'Black Friday' is not lost on me, though perhaps it is on those who celebrate it. Klein is the current master of political journalism (some would call muckraking) exposing the misery behind the logos on our foreign made clothes or tracing the electroshock and bullet holes that we used to build this monolith of capitalism. Here she takes on the climate change and it is a book alternately filled with hope, exasperation and despair. She skewers all the false idols and hopes we could rely on to fight this oncoming threat like natural gas, population control, geoengineering, gree Klein is the current master of political journalism (some would call muckraking) exposing the misery behind the logos on our foreign made clothes or tracing the electroshock and bullet holes that we used to build this monolith of capitalism. Here she takes on the climate change and it is a book alternately filled with hope, exasperation and despair. She skewers all the false idols and hopes we could rely on to fight this oncoming threat like natural gas, population control, geoengineering, green billionaires and other false and foolish hopes. The idea that we can prevent the worst effects of this without fundamentally altering our entire way of life is an illusion and she makes this case thoroughly. I find her way to optimistic but hope she is right. We will look back at this book in the coming years with either praise or an infuriating frustration at what we could of done, how we could have ended up. I do wish a less divisive character had written this book as more people need to read it, but I can’t think of anyone better suited to the task. Are We Screwed? I find it hard to review this in the wake of the UK election in which I was one of only 1,157,613 voters that supported the Green Party. Since the total electorate is 46 million this suggests that only 2% actually care about the environment. If that's accurate then we are completely screwed. Other reviewers have glimpsed hope in these pages but I'm afraid that I don't share Klein's optimism. Human beings are utterly selfish creatures and they're only getting worse. I feel we are living in apocal I find it hard to review this in the wake of the UK election in which I was one of only 1,157,613 voters that supported the Green Party. Since the total electorate is 46 million this suggests that only 2% actually care about the environment. If that's accurate then we are completely screwed. Other reviewers have glimpsed hope in these pages but I'm afraid that I don't share Klein's optimism. Human beings are utterly selfish creatures and they're only getting worse. I feel we are living in apocalyptic times and witnessing the slow death of our civilisation. Naomi is a brave woman who states her case eloquently but I fear that her message is unheeded by the vast majority. It's clear that there is a connection between Denial or climate change and Privilege. You only have to read some of the insane ramblings on this website by the likes of Adam and The Paladin. Fucking morons. These 'Cool dudes' are anything but cool. They are basically the new Klan. But they don't hate niggers. They hate anyone that threatens their way of life. Arrogant pricks. Basically it boils down to Free trade v the environment. NADTA and the WTO have caused huge increases in emissions this century. Developing countries providing cheap labour for multinationals to exploit. The mantra of economic growth. There was an Interesting article in the Guardian about this topic on 9 April. If anyone cares. I keep asking myself the same question: why would 97% of scientists come to the wrong conclusion? Why are you Mr B cleverer than them? You just don't like the truth. Like a naughty child. Face the consequences of our collective actions. Otherwise you can go to hell. Assholes who won't clear up their own shit. Klein is Spot on. Welcome to the 1%. Those of us that have nothing but contempt for humanity. It feels good to read many of the reviews here. Anyone that gives this less than 4 stars is not serious about it. The future is Green. Or there is no future. Stop voting for the establishment. Which is everyone except the Greens. And if voting fails Protest until the fuckers listen. Actually most of my vitriol is directed at the Apathetic electorate rather than the Big Money that runs this joint. If we all stopped voting for their shabby political elite things might just might change. The fucking idiots keep voting for the same clapped out shit. There are plenty of people writing about climate change. Try reading some of them. Kevin Anderson. Caroline Lucas. It's not just Klein. Notice that Klein is not advocating state controlled energy companies as in the past - but an alternative vision of local community owned cooperatives which has been successful in Germany - the most radical nation in Europe. The irony of that given its recent history - or perhaps because of that history - is something that rankles with this Brit. Why are we lagging behind? Because we want out of Europe and would rather hang onto the coat tails of the USA. The energy companies reserve replacement ratio means that in order for shareholders to keep investing the fossil fuel companies must continue to exploit the earths reserves. Sheer madness. We are fucked. The stark truth. We cannot allow the fuel companies to extract even 20% of the reserves currently held. Or the planet will cook. No wonder these same companies find the climate change denial movement. But not only are the climate change deniers funded by polluters but it's clear that many of the big environmental groups have been corrupted by corporate interests. As Klein points out its hard to say which is the most naive. Trading in pollution points the finger squarely at the Clinton administration. Indeed it's already pretty clear that successive U.S. Governments have been the enemy of conservation. Surprise surprise. Later on the author makes reference to the documentary 'Gasland' which should be essential viewing for all those with an interest in opposing the current status quo. The frontline of the battle to come. I Predict A Riot. The Revolution will not be televised. The Apocalypse is looming. Green or Dead. As the radical rock band MC5 once proclaimed 'You are either part of the Problem or part of the Solution' You must choose before it's too late. I'm sorry I couldn't give this one 5 stars. But maybe that's a reflection of my own depression this morning. For me, someone who is studying biology and nature conservation, this was a pretty life changing book. Ive done quite a lot of research about climate change, the science behind it, but never really thought how deeply it is connected to our economical structures, capitalism especially. Naomi Klein helped me understand so many things, see climate change in whole new perspective, gave me plenty of examples and paragraphs to quote when talking or writing about climate change myself. My edition of th For me, someone who is studying biology and nature conservation, this was a pretty life changing book. I´ve done quite a lot of research about climate change, the science behind it, but never really thought how deeply it is connected to our economical structures, capitalism especially. Naomi Klein helped me understand so many things, see climate change in whole new perspective, gave me plenty of examples and paragraphs to quote when talking or writing about climate change myself. My edition of the book is filled with post it notes and underlines, which is always a sign of a good non fiction book. What made the reading experience even more heart wrenching (this is not a happy book) is the current state of the world. This Changes Everything is written two years ago and it emphasizes again and again how proper action must take place NOW. Years have passes and it seems that we have been going backwards in many aspects. The book often draws examples from America, where things are not looking as good as they should. Just mentioning the name Trump explains a lot. The Keystone XL project, which was used as a prime case of what environmental resistance can achieve, has been approved after all among with many other setbacks. This even made me shed a tear of two when learning about nations and people and what they´ve already gone through, stories I had never heard before. Stories I think everyone should know. I have however some criticism, most importantly - why isn´t animal agriculture mentioned? It has bigger greenhouse gas emissions than the whole world´s traffic all put together. There was room enough to talk about farming, but not cattle. The environmental effects of animal agriculture is something very close to my heart (one of the biggest reasons behind my veganism) and something that should be researched and talked about more. Though I do also understand that climate change is such a wide phenomenon with countless sources of greenhouse gases and that Klein chose to focus on oil and coal companies, the immense power they have in our current society. And in explaining that she succeeds perfectly. Her book is well put together, coherent, informative, emotive, but in the end hopeful as well. I can´t recommend it enough. Also, I just well in love with this quote by Victor Hugo (from 1840) that Klein uses: 'How sad it is that nature speaks and mankind doesn´t listen.' This is from the concluding chapter of the book Put another way, only mass social movements can save us now. Because we know where the current system, left unchecked, is headed. We also know, I would add, how that system will deal with the reality of serial climate-related disasters: with profiteering, and escalating barbarism to segregate the losers from the winners. To arrive at that dystopia, all we need to do is keep barreling down the road we are on. The only remaining variable is whether so This is from the concluding chapter of the book Put another way, only mass social movements can save us now. Because we know where the current system, left unchecked, is headed. We also know, I would add, how that system will deal with the reality of serial climate-related disasters: with profiteering, and escalating barbarism to segregate the losers from the winners. To arrive at that dystopia, all we need to do is keep barreling down the road we are on. The only remaining variable is whether some countervailing power will emerge to block the road, and simultaneously clear some alternate pathways to destinations that are safer. If that happens, well, it changes everything. Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, documentary filmmaker and author of the international bestsellers No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. She is a senior correspondent for The Intercept and her writing appears widely in such publications as The New York Times, Le Monde, The Guardian and The Nation, where she is a contributing editor. Klein is a member of the board of directors for climate-action group 350.org and one of the organizers behind Canada’s Leap Manifesto. In November 2016 she was awarded Australia’s prestigious Sydney Peace Prize for, according to the prize jury, “inspiring us to stand up locally, nationally and internationally to demand a new agenda for sharing the planet that respects human rights and equality.” Her books have been translated into more than thirty languages. Lance Bauscher USA 2003, 82 mins Feat. Robert Anton Wilson “Most people just take themselves too damn seriously, which is why they act like damn fools.” An exhilarating journey into the life and thought of Robert Anton Wilson, author of the Illuminatus! Sometimes labelled as a conspiracy theorist or crackpot mystic, Maybe Logic shows him first and foremost as a marvellous human being with a commitment to ‘agnosticism about everything’. His drive to question reality took him to some very interesting places, and the film is full of archive gems as well as interviews with cohorts and admirers (including the author Tom Robbins) and footage of Wilson towards the end of his life dealing with post-polio syndrome. Maybe Logic has been proposed by Kosmik Neil ( Trigger) as part of the Open Season strand. Maybe Logic: The Lives & Ideas Of Robert Anton Wilson (2003) Guerrilla ontologist. Psychedelic magician. Outer head of. Maybe Logic: The Lives and Ideas of Robert Anton Wilson - 2003. Guerrilla ontologist. Psychedelic magician. Outer head of the Illuminati. Quantum psychologist. Maybe Logic: The Lives & Ideas Of Robert Anton Wilson (2003). Guerrilla ontologist. Psychedelic magician. Outer head of the Illuminati. Quantum psychologist. Sit-down comic/philosopher. Discordian Pope. Whatever the label and rank, Robert Anton Wilson is undeniably one of the foundations of 21th Century Western. ![]() 1/15/2018 0 Comments See My Blue Heaven ViozPublished: August 18, 1990 LEAD: As a New York Mafioso named Vinnie Antonelli, Steve Martin might be some genetic misfire in the Corleone family. Renamed Tod and shipped to a small California town as part of the Federal witness-protection program, Vinnie is a wise guy with a nasal voice, stand-up hair moussed to within an inch of its life and an endless supply of gray silk suits that he wears to mow the lawn. As a New York Mafioso named Vinnie Antonelli, Steve Martin might be some genetic misfire in the Corleone family. My Blue Heaven Soul Food Take Out and Fine Catering. 1,336 likes 6 talking about this 310 were here. Known for our outstanding catering, now our. My Blue Heaven is the ninth episode of the sixth season of The Mentalist. Two years after the. Watch My Blue Heaven starring Steve Martin in this Comedy on DIRECTV. It's available to watch. Renamed Tod and shipped to a small California town as part of the Federal witness-protection program, Vinnie is a wise guy with a nasal voice, stand-up hair moussed to within an inch of its life and an endless supply of gray silk suits that he wears to mow the lawn. With a swagger that Mr. Martin plays to perfection, Vinnie tries to tip the F.B.I. Agent (Rick Moranis) who is assigned to keep track of him, and whiles away time at the local supermarket by repricing steaks at 39 cents each and buying an armload of them. And when he stands in his own backyard and stares at the blue skies and open spaces, Mr. ![]() Martin's face expresses profound boredom with such a wholesome life. Such comic moments are scattered throughout 'My Blue Heaven,' which is a truly funny concept and a disappointment on the screen. Martin has been the best part of every movie he has made, whether they are as hilarious as 'The Man With Two Brains' and 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' or as bland as 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles.' ' 'My Blue Heaven' is definitely one of his blander works. Though the scene in which Vinnie teaches the F.B.I agent to dance the merengue was made for Mr. Martin's graceful sense of physical comedy, the film makers rarely allow him to let loose, and they never take full advantage of his shrewd comic acting. Instead, he is hemmed in by the slick, perfunctory direction of Herbert Ross ('Steel Magnolias' and 'The Secret of My Success') and the screenplay by Nora Ephron ('When Harry Met Sally' and 'Heartburn'), who is always much better at comic lines and ideas than at scenes or character. When Vinnie helps along the romance of Mr. Moranis and a prim assistant district attorney played by Joan Cusack, these actors also seem too good for their predictable roles. Moranis plays another of his nerdy characters, lamely characterized by the way he always tries to get out of the car with his seatbelt still on. Cusack is best as a comic foil for Vinnie, who is always committing some new little crime and absurdly explaining it away. He wasn't stealing a car, he says, he was on his way to church at Thanksgiving time to say novenas because 'Thanksgiving is very big in Sicily.' ' At such moments, it is apparent that through most of 'My Blue Heaven,' Steve Martin's talent is tossed away on this sketchy outline of a howlingly funny idea. 'My Blue Heaven' is rated PG-13 ('Special Parental Guidance Suggested for Those Younger Than 13'). It contains some strong language. My Blue Heaven MY BLUE HEAVEN, directed by Herbert Ross; written by Nora Ephron; director of photography, John Bailey; edited by Stephen A. Rotter; music by Ira Newborn; produced by Goldie Hawn, Ms. Ephron and Andrew Stone; released by Warner Brothers. Running time: 96 minutes. This film is rated PG-13. Vinnie Antonelli... Steve Martin Barney Coopersmith... Rick Moranis Hannah Stubs... Joan Cusack Crystal Rybak... Melanie Mayron. A 1990 film directed by Herbert Ross, written by, and starring,, and. Vincent 'Vinnie' Antonelli (Martin) is a wise-cracking, flashy ex-mobster who has entered the Federal Witness Protection Program and is adjusting to with the help of Barney Coopersmith (Moranis), an FBI agent assigned to protect him, whose wife just left him for her own selfish reasons. When Vinnie gets into trouble for committing some local crime, he gets arrested by local District Attorney Hannah Stubbs (Cusack), who is not at all happy that someone like him is being under the watch of Barney and vents at the FBI agent when they first meet. The reason for all of Hannah's frustration is because she's a divorced mom stuck raising her two sons. But as the movie progresses,, and. This movie provides examples of: •: Barney gets Vinny off the felony theft charge by saying that Hannah and the police had no right to search the trunk of the car without a warrant. But Vinny was arrested for car theft. As such, the 'search incident to arrest' standard applies. •: Vinnie is a who can say anything with a straight face, but he's not always very good at coming up with the lies themselves. 'Why do you need 25 copies of it?' 'In case I want to read it more than once!' • Also subverted, since Vinnie pulls off some brilliant lies with few hints at his true intentions, such as when he cons Barney into letting him off the cuffs at the airport, and especially when Vinnie insists he doesn't like guns. •: Vinnie talks Barney into handing over his wrinkled suit trousers so he can take them downstairs to get pressed, treating it as, when his actual plan is to give his F.B.I. Handler the slip. Barney stands alone in his boxers for a moment before realizing that he's been had. •: Shown between Barney and Hannah when they first meet. •: Vinnie's (probably fictional) dog is named '.' Hannah's reaction to this indicates she not only understood it, but provides context for the audience that this was Not A Nice Thing To Name A Dog. Note It basically translates to 'Go do it in the ass.' •: Despite claiming that he, Vinnie proves to be quite the sharpshooter when dealing with the two hit men. •: Vinnie is pretty shameless about stating obvious lies with a straight face. •: Completely subverted with ADA Hannah. She searches Vinnie's trunk without a warrant, socializes with a suspect, goes back on a plea bargain, and, at the end, seems to ignore Vinnie's criminal behavior. • She had every right to search the trunk as stated above in and went back on the plea bargain because there weren't any criminals there. Vinny was wrong and didn't help the DA's office so the deal is off. •: Vinnie becomes more responsible and it's implied he really does come to love and care about the town. Barney loosens up and learns to enjoy his life; Hannah does the same. •: Happens to Barney when Vinnie rebels yet again while they stay at a New York hotel. •: The mobsters in Witness Protection feel this way about Fryburg. Vinnie's testimony at trial sums it up. 'I get to live in a place - it's okay, don't get me wrong - the air is clean, the people are nice; but for a guy like me, who was raised on the sidewalks of the city that never sleeps, it's a living hell.' •: Barney starts as this, to the point that his wife leaves him because he never changes anything about his routine and is not fun anymore. •: Vinnie doesn't like to use public toilets as shown in two scenes. •: Vinnie in the grocery store when he sees Chaldean. •: While undercover as someone from Vancouver, Barney is unfortunate enough to get the nickname of 'Dicky', much to his dismay. Barney: Call me 'Dicky' one more time, and I'll kill you. •: When Vinnie's put on the stand, the cross examination tries to discredit him by pointing out all the perks of being in Witness Protection. Vinnie then continues by pointing out he also never gets to see his parents or friends again and that his wife left him. He finishes by saying it's true that he's only saying these things because of the government deal — but he gave his word that he'd tell the truth, and that's what he's doing. • Of course since Vinnie is a, you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt. •: The movie's climax following the escape from the courtroom. •: Vinnie gets bored with life as a suburbanite, so he begins a scam that involves getting donations of loose change to 'renovate the little league park.' At first he plans on just pocketing the money and getting out of town. By the end of the movie, not only does the local little league team have a new place to play, Vinnie is coaching them. •: Hannah insists that her town is not the dumping ground for the FBI's criminal elements. She has no idea how wrong she is. •: The pair of hitmen sent to kill Vinnie end up in Witness Protection as well. They even live in the same town and have married Vinnie's first and second wives. •: Vinnie is a criminal who has no real remorse and continues to commit crimes on a daily basis. And is voted the Man of the Year. • /: 'What's the difference between a light bulb and a pregnant woman? You can unscrew a light bulb.' •: Vinnie has three wives over the course of the movie. And not a single divorce (that is seen or mentioned, at least). •: As Vinnie poses for his new ID photos, he reassures his handler that 'this isn't the old me, this is the new me', while unconsciously posing as if he were having his mugshot taken. •: Barney never seems to remember to unfasten his seat belt before trying to get out of the car., he becomes aware of this habit. •: Vinnie loves his shiny suits, and makes sure Barney gets one, too. His Little League coach's outfit is even a nice suit in the team colors, complete with baseball pinstripes. •: Barney and Vinnie •: Barney is implied to have this, particularly when he eats pancakes. •: Despite the mob now knowing where Vinnie and many other ex-mobsters live, no one is moved and the assassins are there as well. •: The whole premise is how much trouble Vinnie has in dealing with the new lifestyle required by the program. • But it's completely done wrong. First off, the program is run by the US Marshals, not the FBI. They would never put that many mobsters in a single town, because of the reason shown in the film (a new crime wave) and because if it was found out, many people would be killed at once. 1/15/2018 0 Comments See The Derby Online GorillavidRunning time 28 seconds Country United Kingdom Language The Derby is an 1895, produced and directed by for exhibition on 's, featuring the end of the 29 May 1895 viewed from a raised position close to the finishing line with the main stand in the distance. A photograph of Acres filming the movie has survived, which shows that the camera used in the production was relatively portable despite what might have been expected from the equipment of the time. The film was long considered lost but footage discovered in the Ray Henville collection in 1995 has been identified by the BFI as being from this film. Contents • • • • Synopsis [ ] A stationary camera looks diagonally across a racetrack toward the infield showing the horses as they pass. Once the horses have passed the camera it is clear that the race has come to an end and there is a close finish between three horses. Once the race is over police officers run onto the field. The camera also displays various members of the audience moving around. Current status [ ] Given its age, this short film is available to freely download from the Internet. It has also featured in a number of film collections including The Movies Begin – A Treasury of Early Cinema, 1894-1913. The surviving print for this film has Paul-type perforations, but is believed to be a reprint from 1896 when both Acres and Paul (working separately) were exhibiting the film. This copy however was filmed at a far slower speed than the 40 frame/s which would be typical of the time from an 1895 film. This is said to cast doubt on the identity of the NFTVA [ ] print. References [ ]. Apache Derby, an, is an open source relational database implemented entirely in Java and available under the. Some key advantages include: • Derby has a small footprint -- about 3.5 megabytes for the base engine and embedded JDBC driver. • Derby is based on the Java, JDBC, and standards. • Derby provides an embedded JDBC driver that lets you Derby in any Java-based solution. • Derby also supports the more familiar client/server mode with the. • Derby is easy to install, deploy, and use. Upcoming Events. Derby is always doing something fun! Stay tuned for all the activities. Paint & Sip Hosted by Paint Nite. Tue, Nov 28 - Tue, Jan 23 For More Info t Join us tonight for our Heineken Happy Hour! Q101, live acoustic music, Giant Connect Four, 1224 W Webster Avenue. Chris Collins & Boulder Canyon presents A TRIBUTE TO JOHN DENVER. Apr 11, 2016. Click for more info. ARSENIC & OLD LACE. May 18, 2016 - Jun 26, 2016. Click for more info. Pinkalicious the Musical. May 21, 2016 - Jun 25, 2016. Click for more info. Melissa Combs presents A COUNTRY JUBILEE. May 23, 2016. If you're new to Derby, check out the page. • 22-October-2017: • 29-October-2016: • 11-October-2015: • 27-August-2014: • 17-April-2014: • 17-April-2013: • 29-January-2013: • 25-June-2012: • 26-October-2011: • 02-May-2011: • 15-Dec-2010: • 06-Oct-2010: • 19-May-2010: • 26-August-2009: • 01-May-2009: • 05-September-2008: • 20-May-2008: • 26-April-2008: • 10-December-2007: • 10-August-2007: • 19-December-2006: • 6-October-2006: • 5-July-2006: • 30-June-2006: had a Derby session on performance. • 10-December-2005: had three Derby sessions. • 18-November-2005: • 5-August-2005: • 26-July-2005: • (Japanese) • (English) • 6-December-2004: • 13-November-2004: had three Derby sessions, a tutorial, and a code contest. • 3-August-2004: (see the ). ![]() 1/15/2018 0 Comments See The Makeover Download subtitleDec 10, 2012 Trailer for 'The Makeover' from Hallmark Hall of Fame. Makeover definition, remodeling; renovation; restoration: The old house needs a complete makeover. The Makeover trope as used in popular culture. Simply put, the transformation from mundane (or ugly) to beautiful. This is a theme found in works from all. A high-strung Hannah Higgins takes on the 'project' of grooming diamond-in-the-rough Elliott Doolittle for political office in this charming Hallmark Hall of Fame movie. Contents • • • • • • In media [ ] Television [ ] Makeovers are often popular subjects. Long a staple subject of daytime, they have recently moved into the in television shows such as. Other popular makeover shows include,,,, and. Computer software and online tools can also be used for performing what are known as Virtual Makeovers. ![]() Using a photograph of a human face, software can apply cosmetics, hairstyles, and various eyewear such as contact lenses and sunglasses in order to allow users to visualize different looks without physically trying them on. Today, virtual makeup works in real-time using phone camera tracking, and examples are 's MakeApp, 's Makeup Genius, and 's Makeup Wizard. Books [ ] There is also a series of books, aimed at teenage girls, called The Makeover Series, written. There are several experts who perform the art of makeovers. Usually makeover artists specialize in hairstyling, make-up or clothing. 'The Makeover Guy' is a registered trademark for author and makeover expert who is known for his television head-to-toe makeovers. See also [ ] • References [ ]. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |