Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/15/2011 2:31:07 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
One of the primary pioneering theorists on apocalyptic global warming is Guenther Schwab (1902-2006), an Austrian Nazi.[i] In 1958, Schwab wrote a fictional novel built off of Goethe's (1749-1832) Faustian religious play entitled "Dance with the Devil." While a few scientists since the late 1800's had contemplated the possibility of minor global warming coming from industrial pollution, Schwab used Goethe's dramatic approach to convert the theory into an apocalyptic crisis. The book outlines many looming environmental emergencies, including anthropogenic global warming. Guenther Schwab's very popular novel was an apocalyptic game changer. By the early 1970's, it had been translated into several languages and had sold over a million copies.
[snip]
Later, Guenther Schwab joined the advisory panel of "The Society of Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and Behavior Research." Schwab was especially concerned with the burgeoning population explosion of the Third World that he was sure would eventually overrun Europe. By advocating modern racial science based on genetics, Schwab believed that the population bomb, together with its associated environmental degradation, could be averted. Here, Schwab shows his basic commitment to the Nazi SS doctrine of ‘blood and soil' -- an explosive concoction of eugenics and environmentalism loaded with eco-imperialistic ambitions that had devastating consequences on the Eastern Front in World War II.
The success of Schwab's book helped him to establish an international environmental organization called "The World League for the Defense of Life." Not surprisingly, Werner Haverbeck, former Hitler Youth member and Nazi environmental leader of the Reich's League for Folk National Character and Landscape, later became the chairman of Schwab's organization. In 1973, Haverbeck blamed the environmental crisis in Germany on American capitalism. It was an unnatural colonial import that had infected Germany like a deadly foreign body........
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Here is a link to John P. Holdren, Barack Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Holdren's Early Publications:
"Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."
In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."
In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.
Other early publications include
Energy (1971),
Human Ecology (1973),
Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986),
Strategic Defenses and the Future of the Arms Race (1987),
Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990),
and Conversion of Military R&D (1998). [end excerpt]
Verrrry interesting...
Agronomist --- [Trofim] Lysenko himself spent much time denouncing academic scientists and geneticists, claiming that their isolated laboratory work was not helping the Soviet people. By 1929 Lysenko's skeptics were politically censured, accused of offering only criticisms, and for failing to prescribe any new solutions themselves. In December 1929, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin gave a famous speech praising "practice" above "theory", elevating the political bosses above the scientists and technical specialists. Though for a period the Soviet government under Stalin continued its support of agricultural scientists, after 1935 the balance of power abruptly swung towards Lysenko and his followers.
Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation. In 1941 Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize. [end excerpt]
“Lysenkoismis used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”
"Agronomy is the science and technology of producing and using plants for food, fuel, feed, fiber, and reclamation. Agronomy encompasses work in the areas of plant genetics, plant physiology, meteorology, and soil science. Agronomy is the application of a combination of sciences like biology, chemistry, ecology, earth science, and genetics. Agronomists today are involved with many issues including producing food, creating healthier food, managing environmental impact of agriculture, and creating energy from plants."
There is more.
See post above.
Holdren earned a bachelor’s degree from MIT in 1965 and a Ph.D. in plasma physics from Stanford University five years later. He taught at UC Berkeley for more than twenty years, and chaired the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science from February 2007 to February 2008. Today he directs the Woods Hole Research Center, whose mission is to “understand the causes and consequences of environmental change as a basis for policy solutions for a better world.”................" Sources for John P. Holdren
This certainly puts Al Gore in a “new light”./S
NASA's new VISION: "To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind"
"NASA will have to live with a stagnant budget—again. The $18.7 billion proposed by the Administration is the same amount as 2010 and 2011, and science funding would continue to hover at about $5 billion. But in the details are significant winners and losers. Earth science would grow from $1.439 billion to $1.797 billion in 2012, though House of Representatives Republicans are sure to attack a program focused on understanding global change..." Source
Note to The History Channel and PBS: Here’s an idea for a new program series. Maybe GM will help sponsor it for you.
So much of today’s Liberal/Dem/Progressive agenda can be traced back if not TO but THROUGH those goose-stepping Nasties.
Excellent, thought-provoking post...
Hitler was...
Anti smoking.
Pro vegan.
Nature camps.
Quack medicine.
Sex pervert.
Loved animals
Pro abortion for non whites.
Druid.
Concerned about open space and over population.
Worker party socialist.
Ping.
One way or the other it usually comes down to being anti-human life.
Control.
!
“NASA’s new VISION: “To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind””
. . . and enhance our relations with Muslims!
“NASA’s new VISION: “To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind””
. . . and enhance our relations with Muslims!
-------
“G. W. F. Hegel's philosophy, and the philosophies of those he influenced, especially Karl Marx, have been accused of obscurantism. Analytic and positivistic philosophers, such as A. J. Ayer, Bertrand Russell, and the critical-rationalist Karl Popper, accused Hegel and Hegelianism of being obscure. About Hegel’s philosophy, Arthur Schopenhauer wrote that it is: ". . . a colossal piece of mystification, which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage. . . .”
Nevertheless, biographer Terry Pinkard notes "Hegel has refused to go away, even in analytic philosophy, itself." Hegel was aware of his obscurantism, and perceived it as part of philosophical thinking — to accept and transcend the limitations of quotidian thought and its concepts. In the essay "Who Thinks Abstractly?", he said that it is not the philosopher who thinks abstractly, but the layman, who uses concepts as givens that are immutable, without context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because he transcends the limits of quotidian concepts, in order to understand their broader context. This makes philosophical thought and language appear obscure, esoteric, and mysterious to the layman.” [end excerpt]
Sokal -- Deference to Authority: obscurantism internalized
The Displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter, by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is — second only to American political campaigns — the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time. — Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism (1990)
The Sokal Affair (1996) was a publishing hoax that New York University physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editors and readers of Social Text, an academic journal of post-modern cultural studies that was not then peer-reviewed. In 1996, as an experiment testing editorial integrity (fact-checking, peer review), Prof. Sokal submitted a pseudoscientific article — proposing that physical reality is a social construct — to learn if Social Text would “publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if: (a) it sounded good, and, (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.”
Social Text published the article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, by Prof. Alan Sokal, in the Spring/Summer 1996 issue, dedicated to the Science Wars, then occurring in US academia, about the conceptual validity of scientific objectivity. Amid intellectual battles about the nature of scientific theory, among scientific realists and postmodern critics, Prof. Sokal submitted his hoax article for publication. The raison de guerre being that postmodernist critics questioned the objectivity of science, usually via the criticism of scientific method and knowledge, usually in the disciplines of cultural studies, cultural anthropology, feminist studies, comparative literature, media studies, and science and technology studies. Whereas the scientific realists countered that objective scientific knowledge exists, riposting that postmodernist critics almost knew nothing of the science they criticized. In the event, editorial deference to “Academic Authority” (the Author–Professor) prompted the editors of Social Text to not fact-check Prof. Sokal’s manuscript, by submitting it to peer review, by a scientist.
Hence, and elsewhere, on publication day, in the May 1996 edition of the Lingua Franca journal, in the article “A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies”, Prof. Sokal announced that his transformative hermeneutics article was a parody, submitted “to test the prevailing intellectual standards”, concluding that, as an academic publication, Social Text ignored the requisite intellectual rigor of verification and “felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.” Moreover, as a public intellectual, Prof. Sokal said his hoax was an action protesting against the contemporary tendency towards obscurantism — abstruse, esoteric, and vague writing in the social sciences:
"In short, my concern over the spread of subjectivist thinking is both intellectual and political. Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is that they are false (when not simply meaningless). There is a real world; its properties are not merely social constructions; facts and evidence do matter. What sane person would contend otherwise? And yet, much contemporary academic theorizing consists precisely of attempts to blur these obvious truths — the utter absurdity of it all being concealed through obscure and pretentious language."
Moreover, independent of the hoax, as a pseudoscientific opus, the article “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” is described as an exemplar “pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense, centered on the claim that physical reality is merely a social construct.” Source
“Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”
We've all had an intense course these last 10 years or so on the theory and practice of Lysenkoism!
----------
Sanger and Goldman supported each others activism.
Emma Goldman (1869 – 1940) was an anarchist known for her political activism, writing and speeches. She played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the twentieth century.
Born in Kovno in the Russian Empire (present-day Kaunas, Lithuania), Goldman emigrated to the US in 1885 and lived in New York City, where she joined the burgeoning anarchist movement. Attracted to anarchism after the Haymarket affair, Goldman became a writer and a renowned lecturer on anarchist philosophy, women’s rights, and social issues, attracting crowds of thousands. She and anarchist writer Alexander Berkman, her lover and lifelong friend, planned to assassinate Henry Clay Frick as an act of propaganda of the deed. Although Frick survived the attempt on his life, Berkman was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison. Goldman was imprisoned several times in the years that followed, for "inciting to riot" and illegally distributing information about birth control. In 1906, Goldman founded the anarchist journal Mother Earth.
In 1917, Goldman and Berkman were sentenced to two years in jail for conspiring to "induce persons not to register" for the newly instated draft. After their release from prison, they were arrested—along with hundreds of others—and deported to Russia. Initially supportive of that country’s Bolshevik revolution, Goldman quickly voiced her opposition to the Soviet use of violence and the repression of independent voices. In 1923, she wrote a book about her experiences, My Disillusionment in Russia. While living in England, Canada, and France, she wrote an autobiography called Living My Life. After the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, she traveled to Spain to support the anarchist revolution there. She died in Toronto on May 14, 1940, aged 70.
During her life, Goldman was lionized as a free-thinking "rebel woman" by admirers, and derided by critics as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution. Her writing and lectures spanned a wide variety of issues, including prisons, atheism, freedom of speech, militarism, capitalism, marriage, free love, and homosexuality. Although she distanced herself from first-wave feminism and its efforts toward women’s suffrage, she developed new ways of incorporating gender politics into anarchism. After decades of obscurity, Goldman’s iconic status was revived in the 1970s, when feminist and anarchist scholars rekindled popular interest in her life. [end excerpt]
Boy!! Have we ever!
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya
‘bout the raisin’ of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
‘alf a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
“I drink, therefore I am.”
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
bm
- CLICK (this is quite a list)
SYNDICALISM is a type of economic system proposed as a replacement for capitalism and state socialism which uses federations of collectivised trade unions or industrial unions. It is a form of economic corporatism that advocates interest aggregation of multiple non-competitive categorised units to negotiate and manage an economy.
For adherents, labor unions are the potential means of both overcoming economic aristocracy and running society fairly in the interest of the majority, through union democracy. Industry in a syndicalist system would be run through co-operative confederations and mutual aid. Local syndicates would communicate with other syndicates through the Bourse du Travail (labor exchange) which would manage and transfer commodities.
Syndicalism is also used to refer to the tactic of bringing about this social arrangement, typically expounded by anarcho-syndicalism and De Leonism, in which a general strike begins and workers seize their means of production and organise in a federation of trade unionism, such as the CNT. Throughout its history, the reformist section of syndicalism has been overshadowed by its revolutionary section, typified by the IWW or the Federación Anarquista Ibérica section of the CNT.....................[snip]
Theory and Practice
Syndicalism is one of the three most common currents of socialist economics, together with Market socialism and socialist planned economies. It holds, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organised trade internally share equal ownership of its production. By contrast, socialism emphasises distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organise internally.
Syndicalism is non-governmental and while some people say it is privatism, unlike communism, others[who?] maintain that it is more accurate to associate it with the civic sector. Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership of the means of production in favor of ownership by the class of individuals who actually use such property (i.e., the workers or proletariat, who under most variants of communism would have control of the state as well, muddling the distinction between state and proletarian ownership).
In syndicalism, unions exist independent of the state rather than needing the state's micromanagement and central planning. As with businesses in capitalism, labor unions in syndicalism would likely share a complicated relationship of co-operation and opposition with the state (with the obvious exception of anarcho-syndicalism, under which there would be no state).
Syndicalists state that society is to be organised bottom-up based on direct democracy, confederation, workplace democracy and decentralized socialism, and that to get to such a society they may either initiate a general strike through direct action and workplace occupation or - in the case of reformist syndicalists - develop the syndicalist economics alongside the state, in competition to it.
Syndicalists state that delegation - the use of proxy representation - will facilitate direct democracy and that each commune/region would be independent in the confederation. Syndicalists typically support homosexual rights and women's rights, prominent anarcho-syndicalist Emma Goldman was among one of the first to speak out for homosexual rights explicitly. see Anarcho-syndicalism for a more indepth look at syndicalism. ………Source
What’s old is new again - retread of old, failed ideas. People are amazingly stupid to keep falling for the same old cons - but then again we already knew that or we wouldn’t be seeing all those Nigerian email scams and male organ enhancement offers! All that stuff must find an audience or people wouldn’t waste their time sending them out!
Political Ragnarök, or, Obama’s Boldly-Played Budget Battle Bet-The-Ranch Blowout"
You left out “Community Organizer”... LOL
Woods Hole Research Center (nothing to do with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) is nothing but a front for Soros-type money to fund alarmist climate studies. One of the studies was Amazon-is-dying where one of their activist-scientists, Nepstad, put tarps over part of the Amazon to prove that it would wither without water. Although his test was extreme and parched the ground, he signed onto the Amazongate scandal memo where 18 (or some odd number) of acitivist-scientists swore up and down that the Amazon was "sensitive to slight changes in rainfall". This was to try to paper over the problem where the WWF published some false crap about the Amazon sensitive to slight changes in rainfall, then the IPCC picked it up as peer review, great stuff, but were caught lying.
Thank you for that information.
I read about that Amazon rain — IPCC lie.
Bump!
He calls for "heavy handed U.S. leadership."
The New World Coming: Climatic Disruption and the Clash of World Views "....We have one political party in the United States that’s committed to smaller government and to growth at the same time. They are absolutely mutually exclusive. That is silliness; it makes no sense at all. We have to have more government if we’re going to have more growth, and more rules, more thoroughly pervasive rules that establish the stability of the biophysical system that we all depend on. Building that change is going to take a major effort on the part of the scientific community first in defining it, and second in executing it – persuading the conservation community that it has to have clear objectives that will work............... "
George Woodhall
Correction: George Woodwell
http://wamu.org/audio/dr/08/06... (starting at 45:26 into the 51:19 interview)
Dian Rehm’s question to James Hansen (NASA): “Are you calling for trials for energy company executives.” James Hanses says, “CEOs are guilty of crimes against humanity if they continue to dispute what is understood scientifically and continue to fund contrarians.”
On the first and last items, this became a reality within two decades of the Fabian takeover of all of the former public school systems in 1966.
Serf-mentality acceptance of the other two items was a direct result of that reality.
You have to give the marxists credit for laying out and then implementing, almost a century later, this strategy...
Would that we had someone in a leadership position in D.C. with the backbone, love of the former Constitution, and the leadership skills to begin the process of stopping this headlong plunge into tyranny.
Note To Republicans: Don't Just Rein in the EPA, Abolish It
Global Warming on Free Republic
Are you saying Hitler was like a modern day University liberal?
Well, supposedly, he did pass gas a lot, so ....
I remember that Sokal spoof. Thanks for posting about it.
>> Prof. Sokal announced that his transformative hermeneutics article was a parody, submitted “to test the prevailing intellectual standards”
Brilliant. An easy target though - tripping up Liberals with metaphysical noise.
I was explaining that to my son just tonight. I was talking with my daughter about her teacher marking her wrong when my daughter said “the Federalists from 1780 would be considered Democrats today. Examples being National Health Care and higher taxes.” (I’m waiting to discuss this with the teacher once I get her test back.) I even told my daughter that “Except a Democrat of today will THINK that they are “anti-Federalist” - being for the “little guy” and the “working man”.
And then told my son (writing a paper on Hitler) how the Liberals of today would say that Hitler, and all Dictators, are like Republicans.
Although like I told my daughter, the Republicans of today are also “big government” - so perhaps it is the Tea Party and Libertarians that are more like the anti-Federalists of our early years.
My way of thinking is that the Democrats are a drunk, gamboling, womanizer married man and Republicans are the accepting, doormat, vomit cleaning wife who always says this is the last time...it’s got to stop....( but never does anything )
True enough! My wife was just telling me about how she and some of her friends want to do an intervention of a gal that drinks, and they want the husband to get involved. I told her I’m not sure how much he will be for it (enabler), and better to get a third party involved. (Hmmmm.....!)
http://wamu.org/audio/dr/08/06/r1080623-20635.ram
Corrected LINK:
(starting at 45:26 into the 51:19 interview)
Dian Rehm’s question to James Hansen (NASA): “Are you calling for trials for energy company executives.” James Hanses says, “CEOs are guilty of crimes against humanity if they continue to dispute what is understood scientifically and continue to fund contrarians.”
In closing remarks to an annual conference of around 300 scientific civil servants on 3 February, in London, Beddington said that selective use of science ought to be treated in the same way as racism and homophobia. “We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality...We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method,” he said.
Beddington said he intends to take this agenda forward with his fellow chief scientists and also with the research councils. “I really believe that... we need to recognise that this is a pernicious influence, it is an increasingly pernicious influence and we need to be thinking about how we can actually deal with it.
”I really would urge you to be grossly intolerant...We should not tolerate what is potentially something that can seriously undermine our ability to address important problems.
“There are enough difficult and important problems out there without having to… deal with what is politically or morally or religiously motivated nonsense.”
[snip]
Ben Goldacre, a science journalist and medical doctor, agrees. “Society has been far too tolerant of politicians, lobbyists, and journalists wilfully misusing science, distorting evidence by cherry-picking data that suits their view, giving bogus authority to people who misrepresent the absolute basics of science, and worse,” he told Research Fortnight. “This distorted evidence has real world implications, because people need good evidence to make informed decisions on policy, health, and more. Beddington is frustrated, and rightly so: for years I’ve had journalists and politicians repeatedly try to brush my concerns on these issues under the carpet."
Scientists need to fight back, he says.
In closing, Beddington said: “I’d urge you, and this is a kind of strange message to go out, but go out and be much more intolerant.” He asked his audience to forgive him for what appear to have been unscripted remarks, adding: “But it is a thing that has been very much at the forefront of my mind over the last few months and I think we need to do it.”
Btt
“But there is one thing I can predict to eaters of meat - that the world of the future will be vegetarian!” - Adolf Hitler November 11, 1941. This was spoken on an evening when Hitler was sure that the Russians were on the ropes at the gates of Moscow. According to Robert Proctor, both Hitler and Himmler had plans to make Germany vegan after the war. Even Goebbels was a vegetarian, but the biggest vegetarian Nazi was Rudolf Hess.
There can be no doubt that for the most part, Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler’s Table Talk:1941-44 shows that Hitler routinely claimed to be a vegetarian, p. 156, 168, 176-77, 333-34, 430-31, 465, 483. While Proctor shows that there is some testimony that suggests that Hitler also ate sausage, dumplings, ham, and some seafood on occasion, it still cannot be denied that he became a vegetarian at some point in his political career. See Proctor, The Nazi War on Cancer, pp. 134-141.
“George Soros -- whom we're always told is not serving his own economic interests at all by promoting liberal politicians and big-government policies -- is launching a new investment fund that plans to profit off of the "green energy" boom, which is entirely dependent on government subsidies supported by the groups Soros funds.
As the press release puts it, this fund will "leverage technology and business model innovation to improve energy efficiency, reduce waste and emissions, harness renewable energy, and more efficiently use natural resources, among other applications." As Soros puts it in the same release: “Developing alternative sources of energy and achieving greater energy efficiency is both a significant global investment opportunity and an environmental imperative.” Cadie Thompson at CNBC's NetNet flagged this.
So, yeah. The big-government policies advanced by the liberal outfits he funds -- like Center for American Progress -- will enrich the companies in which Soros is investing.
But this story gets better.
The press release casually mentions whom Soros is hiring to run this new fund: Cathy Zoi.
Zoi was Barack Obama's "Acting Under Secretary for Energy and Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy." An Al Gore acolyte, Zoi was Obama's point-woman on subsidizing green tech. Now she's going to work for George Soros to profit off of subsidized green tech.
If you remember Zoi's name, it's because of another green-tech conflict of interest: Zoi's husband is an executive at a window company, Serious Windows, which the White House regularly held up as a "poster child of green industry."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.