ROTTEN TOMATOES: "Super Size" Guy to Take on "Science"

"Super Size" Guy to Take on "Science"

by Scott Weinberg | December 20, 2005

Morgan Spurlock, director of the hit documentary "Super Size Me," will soon turn his cameras towards a documentary adaptation of Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science," which is quite the fascinating book, if I do opine myself.

Says Variety: ""Super Size Me" helmer Morgan Spurlock has optioned bestseller "The Republican War on Science" to direct as a docu project next year.

Tome, by Chris Mooney, explores the motivations behind the U.S. government's stances on scientific topics, from stem-cell research and climate change to missile defense and sex education.

Mooney argues in "War" that the right-wing approach to scientific research is born of a conservative distaste for environmental, health and safety regulations, as well as evolution theory and legalized abortion.

"War" was published by Basic Books in August.

"There was a time when science was respected by politicians and government officials and when the information obtained through unbiased scientific exploration was used for the better of society," said Spurlock.

"Today, all of that is being ignored, manipulated and used incorrectly to further political agendas. We need the real answers to the big questions."

Related Items

Celeb:	Morgan Spurlock
Movie:	Super Size Me

(1-20 of 52 posts) | Reply

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 20 2005 05:23 AM

[b]Bah[/b]
It's silly to throw all Republicans in one boat and say that they all feel a certain way.

And everyone in politics spins -- I mean, both Democrats and Republicans try to be persuasive by offering "their side" of the story, or opinion on a policy, or whatever. It's all about how the public "views" something, because, let's be honest, the majority of the American public can't possibly form an educated opinion about such complex matters as foreign policy, or economic policy. It’s like judging a 1,000-page book by only reading a single paragraph that was summarized and provided by the media.

On NPR a while ago they were talking about how the approval rating of the Republican leadership was very low, but one of the experts on the panel pointed out that the approval rating of the Democratic leadership is just as low, only no one talks about that because they're not in the majority. And the one who makes the decisions, the guy on top, is always an easy target for criticism.

(Reply to this)

puablo writes:
on Dec 20 2005 06:00 AM

[b]Yeah but...[/b]
While there's always going to be extremes on any side, there are always moderates too that don't fit the bill. The name of the book is just about people, who happen to be Republican, and their (real or perceived) "war on science". So you have to take it with a grain of salt and of course it doesn't mean "everybody who is a Republican hates science". So don't worry about it.

Meanwhile, I'll be interested in seeing this. It will be fun to laugh at the extremists who actually are ignoring science!

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Dec 20 2005 07:34 AM

Hmmm, I thougt Spurlock was going to do a movie about public school music programs? I really wanted to see that.

Ah well, this sounds interesting too, although I suppose i should read the book!

(Reply to this)

Jeliel³ writes:
on Dec 20 2005 07:34 AM

[b]Spurlock is gold[/b]
This will kick some butt. SSM and his 30 days are both works of observational genius. Now he's gonna bitch-slap conservatism around.... I CANNOT WAIT

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Dec 20 2005 08:36 AM

[b]Politics from South Park[/b]
This guy's a schmuck -- Spurlock, that is... Typical sensationalism (never mind the fact that some gal made a documentary where she ate at McDs for 30 days, but limited her intake to 2000 cals and actually lost some weight)...

It's funny when you find the most accurate representations of politics performed by the fourth grade creations of Matt Stone and Trey Parker (Global Warming!!!). As Puablo and sokiveta discussed, this is more a representation of the extreme, not the norm. I would tend to agree that dems tend to be more scientifically balanced (for no other reason than that's what I've been led to believe by the media), but, then again, when 99% of the political system is comprised of lawyers, that's not saying a whole lot.

The thing about this that annoys me is that it focuses on one side and not both (again why South Park rocks -- unmitigated lampooning of all idiots). The veracity of the message (this one's for you Michael Moore) is muddied by the parochial viewpoint.

Anyway, at least the fool won't have to worry about "killing himself" this time around -- unless he stays for 30 days up at high altitude where that hole in the ozone is (one can only hope).

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Dec 20 2005 11:35 AM

[b]More political hacking[/b]
I liked "Supersize Me", but this will be political garbage.

I'm against abortion, but for environmental protections. I'm against sex ed in public schools, but accept evolution. I vote republican, but only because they're a bit closer to my beliefs than democrats. This sort of "documentary" can only widen the gap we all see and feel in America, by skipping over the vast majority of us who don't toe the line like the book claims.

This won't slap down conservatives; they/we don't assess their moral or cultural guilt from anything produced by Spurlock or Hollywood (or George Bush or Pat Robertson, for that matter). Thinking so only reveals how wide that gap already is.

Spurlock is more or less respected and he's definitely a smart guy. It's a shame he's going to turn his talents to nonsense and the worst kind of juvenile hack. Putting poison in a chocolate-coated candy shell might make it appetizing, but it doesn't make it any less stupid to ingest. Spreading lies and mean-spirited misinformation in a well-produced, "fun" and "witty" film doesn't make those lies true.

(Reply to this)

Flim Springfield writes:
on Dec 20 2005 02:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#829120)
"(never mind the fact that some gal made a documentary where she ate at McDs for 30 days, but limited her intake to 2000 cals and actually lost some weight)"

Well, that was kind of the point of Supersize Me. How many people actually watch their calories?

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Dec 20 2005 02:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#829122)
I would say most women and most men when they see their waistlines expanding. Then again, if you can eat yourself to heart-attack inducing cholestorol levels and sue a company, it makes it all worth it.

(Reply to this)

Anino writes:
on Dec 20 2005 08:10 PM

[b]sad[/b]
Sad how lawyers and judges are determining what is or isn's science now. Do you think lawyers were bad at science when they were in high school and decided to be 'men of letters'? Today's Dover school board decision is a good example of lawyers pretending to be scientists. Take the example of intelligent design--the media has pretty much written it off as 'religion in disguise'--yet they ignore the proponents of intelligent design--like Dr Henry Schaeffer--PhD in Molecular Biophysics from Berkely and five time Noble Peace Prize nominee. I'd think he'd be more qualified than some ACLU lawyer when it came to discussing science, wouldn't you?

(Reply to this)

Dunderklumpen writes:
on Dec 20 2005 09:16 PM

""On NPR a while ago they were talking about how the approval rating of the Republican leadership was very low, but one of the experts on the panel pointed out that the approval rating of the Democratic leadership is just as low, only no one talks about that because they're not in the majority. And the one who makes the decisions, the guy on top, is always an easy target for criticism.""

The latest polls have shown that a majority would vote to replace Republican reps with Democratic...

(Reply to this)

Roadhg67 writes:
on Dec 20 2005 09:27 PM

This is point that no one else has made and is the basis for the Republican "war on science". The fact that their base is comprised of rich, white men (for their economic policies of laisse-faire and pro-business stance) and the "morality" bit... what has proven to be (based on polls) the strength of the Republicans is their stance on religious issues, such as abortion and euthanasia, or more recently their hardline stance on fighting terrorism (which has actually prompted a change in Republican ideas, it used to be that they believed in smaller government, when they are now imposing more rules and bureaucracy)...

Anyway, going back to what I originally stated... Republicans fight for control by getting the religious backing, so they fight for religion to maintain that control... its politics.

(Reply to this)

VML writes:
on Dec 20 2005 11:21 PM

I thought he was doing a documentary about art classes.

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 21 2005 03:19 AM

[b]Michael Moore is a shmuck[/b]
I'm Republican because I'm a small business owner and I am conservative. I'm for euthanasia, but I don't think it should be legal because it's too vulnerable to fraud. I think that anyone who believes in teaching abstinence-only in our schools needs to get in touch with reality, but I firmly believe in sex only after marriage. I believe that women should always have full control of whether or not they GET pregnant, but I'm against abortion because I think it's quite literally murder. I believe that evolution should be taught in our schools, but I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Science will change and improve on its theories, it always has. And it would be stupid to ignore what scientists are discovering, even if you don't agree with their conclusions.

I think parents who worry that their children will stray from their religion because of what they learn in Biology class probably need to spend a little more time at home with them building their testimony and strengthening their faith, than trying to sue their school. At the same time, religion is culture and it's silly to think that we're supposed to pretend it doesn't exist whenever we enter a public building.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 07:32 AM

[b]Whatever[/b]
If this movie takes both sides of the issue, could be interesting. However, if Spurlock goes out intent to 'disprove' Intelligent Design, or prove how stupid Republicans are, it is just propaganda. I hope he doesn't just interview different Phd's for two hours, talking about how dumb religious people are. Because that means some religious person is going to get a whole slew of Phd's, and interview them about how thick-headed the first Phd's are. It will be a vicious cycle, and who are we to believe? Which Phds??

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 01:00 PM

[b]If...[/b]
If it is true you can't disprove Intelligent Design, then you MUST teach it when you teach evolution. To NOT teach it is to pre-suppose that it is wrong, and since we cannot disprove it, we cannot stop teaching it. If there is even the slightest possibility it is correct, we'd want to teach it, right? We wouldn't want to teach our kids the wrong information, just because it has a religious component to it. Imagine, the United States government refusing to teach the correct information, becuase of the separation of Church and State. That would be ridiculous. The Constitution intends to prevent State ordained religion, it isn't there to condemn us to idiocy!!! There is a MASSIVE difference between the State mandating that you worship one god over another, and the state presenting an idea that millions of people believe. This is a non-arguement, and currently the State is doing a VERY bad job of realizing that they're on the wrong side of it.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 02:20 PM

[b]Joke? Not really[/b]
I didn't miss your point, and neither did I twist it. Rather, I intended to introduce my own thread of logic here. Thanks for your concern about whether I can read english, I can.
ID is based on math. It is based on statistical probabilities that any system (in this case, our earth, our galaxy, our universe) can exist. It analyzes factors in those systems (distance from earth to sun, earth to moon, strenght of gravity) and compares it to how those factors have to align in order for life to exist. Then it comes up with a percentage point that each factor can error and still have life, adds all those together, and gets a probability that the entire system can exist. an example would be saying that after analying all that, the universe is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 and no random process can explain such "fine tuning", as it is called. So, ID is not only scientific, it is rooted in science.
Second, saying that Evolution is not a belief isn't correct. It is a belief. Any time you teach something in school, you want to teach all available logical theories. So, yes, if you had a class on Voodo, you would want to teach all aspects and theories revolving around Voodo. To not do so would be intellectually dishonest. I'm not trying to sell something, unless that something is logic and reason. You don't need to teach children that God created the earth in 6 days, but to be educationally honest, you'd want them to know both sides of the issue. I would want my kids to know both sides, and I believe Evolution to be incorrect. If your children don't learn about my ideas (shared by millions, by the way), then they will be worse off for it. It's about how to do education. Teaching about the Bible? Teach all sides. Teaching about psychic powers? Teach all sides. And yes, if you are teaching about how we got here, teach ALL sides. Besides the obviious fact that, as I brought up before, to not teach ID is to assume it is wrong. Serioiusly, if you weren't assuming it to be wrong, you'd be an idiot to not teach it! I don't think you're an idiot, so I must assume you think it is wrong. Well, prove it wrong, and we'll talk about not teaching it. Otherwise, we simply must teach it to be a possibility.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 02:22 PM

[b]P.S.[/b]
Are you honestly suggesting that there are only two groups of people who twist the truth? Please.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Dec 21 2005 02:32 PM

In reply to this comment (#829131)
Wow thats a lot of err something. ID has never had any kind of theory published for scientific review. Not in any major scientific pubs. You can call it a theory all you want but it's only a hypothesis

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 21 2005 04:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#829133)
Ya but everything is a theory. I mean, any scientist will tell you that they refer to everything as a theory. But Merlin235 is right, for life to be created randomly something that has a one-in-a-trillion chances to happen would have to happen about 300 times in a row. Even biologists would agree with that, but then at the same time, evolution is the best theory they have right now, so they're moving forward with it.

I think when we all get to Heaven both sides will be suprised -- I think scientists will be suprised to meet God, and I think religious people will be suprised by how much science was actually involved in the creation of the Universe.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 06:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#829134)
if something has a one-in-a-trillion chance of happening... then it still happens though right? You don't know how big the universe is and when life does have the right conditions to occur which could be in many, many places - the "life" occuring there doesn't then have to think they're the design of some greater being.

And all this talk about life having a one-in-a-trillion chance of happening is based on what facts exactly? We only have some idea of how life works here on earth let alone the rest of the universe. Working out the probability for stuff like this is a joke.

(Reply to this)