Journal pudge's Journal: Al Gore Is Far Too Stupid To Listen To 14
So Al Gore has a new book out called "The Assault on Reason," which is basically a book that claims that if you disagree with Gore, then you are abandoning reason and logic.
He must be listening to Janeane Garofalo too much.
And I am not exaggerating. His claims on Olbermann tonight were just amazing. At the same time he is attacking a lack of logic and reason in our public debate, he says that one of the results of the lack of respect for facts is "climate crisis [mistakes]." Al Gore himself has pushed many lies about climate change, and because we are not convinced by his lies, we are making a "mistake" due to a lack of respect for "facts."
He had more examples, including -- incredibly -- "eliminating the prohibition against torture." Except for the fact that there was no elimination of the prohibition against torture, and in fact, the prohibition against torture was reaffirmed under Bush.
So who isn't respecting the facts, Mr. Vice President?
And he actually claimed this whopper:
I think that our public airwaves, and more importantly the national conversation of democracy, if you will, now is dominated by elements that were not features of the conversation that our Founders expected that we would have, and a lot of the public forum is taken up not just with trivialities, but also with very cleverly constructed propagandistic mesasging that really doesn't take logic and reason into account.
There was never a Golden Age whene everything was all logical in the past, of course not, but the relative role of facts and logic and reason used to be much larger than it has become in the age of 30-second TV ads and the multi-screen experience.
Not expected? Hell, the Founders themselves passed the Sedition Act in a misguided attempt to deal with the very same "features of the conversation."
Indeed, throughout the 1790s, almost every newspaper was affiliated directly with one or the other political party. It was Vice President Thomas Jefferson who hired a scandalmonger to print lies about President John Adams.
Bill O'Reilly isn't unique, anymore than Benjamin Franklin-Bache was. We have Ann Coulter, they had Thomas Paine. We have Michael Moore, they had James Callendar.
There's nothing new under the sun, and it's shocking that Al Gore would actually think that our discourse wasn't dominated by "propaganda" at any time in our history.
OK, it's not that shocking.
Gore is only a representative (Score:2)
Ok, so Gore is stupid, so what? Anyone smart enough figured that out on their own, and anyone else that believes he's brilliant, a prophet, a father-figure, won't even listen to what a hater like you has to say against a great man.
A relevant example would be when Penn & Teller floated a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. [youtube.com] People just signed away, lots of people, simply because is sounded like a dangerous chemical, one used by companies, ewww. Of course, dihydrogen mono
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so Gore is stupid, so what?
So I felt like posting about it. :p
With a rule system like this in place, it's easy to see how ineffectual a naysayer like pudge is when he attacks a great man that I know cares about the world, and loves humans, and is fighting evil (chemicals & companies). Shame on you pudge. :-)
Yeah, I suck.
basically I believe that many people, when confronted with reality, will accept it, even if they don't understand it.
Huh. What reality are YOU living in that you believe that? :-)
I take a different view. I believe that in the long run, we simply won't convince very many people. Our goal should be twofold: to marshall whatever resources (manpower and other) that we are able to, and then to learn to work with the people who disagree with us to effect as much change as we can.
Our Goal (Score:2)
I'm all for marshalling some resources, but do you have another option for affecting change? It appears that you see people as only disagreeing with you? And if so, then it would make sense that you could work together, and compromise on issues.
Myself, I see people that cannot stand people like you. A pers
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that you see people as only disagreeing with you? And if so, then it would make sense that you could work together, and compromise on issues.
You will always, always, always have about half the country disagreeing with you on major issues. That's always how it has been, and always how it will be. And you have to give some to get. That's how it was in the 1800s, and the 1900s, and nothing's changed.
You can't work with everyone, of course. Washington couldn't work with Thomas Paine, in the later years. But most people are willing to work together, given the opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Only when people insist on designing issues to split the country. I can think up plenty of issues that fail to split the country 50/50. Not only that, but the status quo always has more support than change, unless there's a serious and continuous driving force for change (tell me again, how exactly has airline security theatre improved since 9/11?).
Re: (Score:2)
You will always, always, always have about half the country disagreeing with you on major issues.
Only when people insist on designing issues to split the country. I can think up plenty of issues that fail to split the country 50/50.
I didn't say ALL issues. Sure, there are many issues we agree on. But there will always be major issues that split us. Take immigration: there's a very clear line here, those who want to kick the Mexicans out, and those who don't. Take Iraq. Take universal health care, environmental issues, abortion. These are not manufactured issues, these are real issues about the nature of our country.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, take abortion. According to this poll [go.com] 11% of the people believe third trimester abortions should be legal. Status quo is nearly tied with restricting abortions, and far ahead of making them easier to get. 88% believe it should be legal to save a woman's life. Only by picking and choosing do you get anything approaching a 50-50 split, thus it's the split that's manufactured.
It's not about the issue itself being manufactured, it's all of the bias thrown in to ensure th
Re: (Score:2)
According to this poll [go.com] 11% of the people believe third trimester abortions should be legal. Status quo is nearly tied with restricting abortions, and far ahead of making them easier to get. 88% believe it should be legal to save a woman's life. Only by picking and choosing do you get anything approaching a 50-50 split, thus it's the split that's manufactured.
Well, no, it's not manufactured at all. It is expoited, sure. But a very large number of people want abortion to be illegal in all but the most extreme cases, and another very large number of people want it to remain legal until (at least) viability. That is not a manufactured split, and it is not cherry-picking. That is a serious disagreement with no room for compromise. Only when we are technologically able to completely prevent unwanted pregnancies from beginning will this issue become moot.
The same goes with most of those other issues.
I agre
Re: (Score:2)
the main point (the effect that the legislation has on them) is beside the point?
What I'm saying is that more work goes into redefining what 50% means than goes into solving the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Pot, kettle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can continue to believe that major issues "always, always, always" have "half the country" disagreeing
SOME major issues will, yes, where "half" means "significant people on both sides, not exactly or approximately 50 percent."
and I'll continue to believe that the numbers you are basing your belief on are flagrantly manipulated by pollsters and politicians who waste their time producing ludicrously false dichotomies in order to get the pro/con rates that they want.
You're wrong. That every example you gave actually supported my argument shows it.
And worse, again, YOU are the one focusing on the numbers, rather than actually solving the problem.
way to ignore his points (Score:2)
Question: Did many newspapers used to report the facts of a situation, thereby cutting through the spin or outright falsehoods that pass for quotes these days?
These days journalism seems to mean getting a quote from a Dem and Rep, and not reporting the facts o
Re: (Score:2)
The Founders expected people to read newspaper articles.
Yes, in PARTISAN newspapers that were even more glaringly biased than the WSJ, NYT, Fox News, or MSNBC. I am not exaggerating. Most of the newspapers were directly affiliated with one of the political parties, didn't hide it, and intentionally and obviously slanted all their coverage that way.
Question: Did many newspapers used to report the facts of a situation, thereby cutting through the spin or outright falsehoods that pass for quotes these days?
They very often lied about the facts and nearly every article spun the facts that were presented to partisan advantage. "Press objectivity" did not exist in the 1700s.
These days journalism seems to mean getting a quote from a Dem and Rep, and not reporting the facts of the situation.
And in the 1790s, journalism meant trying to