Gore’s latest truth even more “inconvenient” than his previous one
Ex-Vice President Al Gore and his new book are also featured as the cover story on the newest issue of Time Magazine. Gore said it’s too easy—and too partisan—to simply blame the policies of President George W. Bush.
We are all responsible for decisions our country makes, Gore says in an exerpt. “We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us?
“Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.”
The Assault On Reason
Well, at least Gore is being more honest as to his strategy.
I'm beginning to think Green Al has gone off the deep end. None of us are ever completely happy with the way our governmnet or system of democracy works. But with Al, I suspect he wrote this book because his view of the world is not accepted by the majority.
We do govern ourselves in spite of what Al may proclaim. That we govern ourselves differently then he wishes does not mean there is an "assault on reason". We are reasonable, it's Al who may not be.
Regards,
Paul, I've lived in several countries now, including the US, and there's no other country in the world where the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerry Falwell take such a prominent place, except places like Iran. The fact is that demagogues and bible-thumpers have completely hijacked the "national discourse" while greater numbers of ordinary Americans stop voting and anaesthetize themselves with the latest "news" about Britney Spears.
The silent majority of Americans are an intelligent, thoughtful bunch, and the ones I know completely fed up with the FOX Noise brand of journalism. I really hope that Gore's book kicks off a backlash against those who have degraded and infantilized the national discussion for so long.
I don't need to remind you that the majority of voters in 2000 actually did accept his view of the world, at least more than Bush, whose approval rating is lower than any recent President, even Carter. So it seems reasonable to suppose that Gore actually does represent the view of a majority who have been somewhat marginalized by the electoral college system.
Of course, time will tell. Gore's has every right to air his views, and the people have every right to assess them on their merits and respond, much as they did with An Inconvenient Truth.
Dew, I think the greatest failure in our democracies, is low voter turnout. I believe in Australia you have to vote or you are fined, but I still believe the biggest weakness in our system is the lethargy of the voters.
The electoral college system in the US is something every presidential candidate is aware of when entering a campaign, so complaining about it afterwards is a bit of sour grapes.
And compared to our friendly dictatorship here in Canada, the US offers voters the ability to inititiate referendums, elect senators, etc., all democratic levers not available to us here in Canada.
Regards,
"there's no other country in the world where the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerry Falwell take such a prominent place"
Falwell's dead, but I expect the fringe left will keep exhuming the corpse of their favourite bogey-man for years to come. See above.
"The silent majority of Americans are an intelligent, thoughtful bunch, and the ones I know completely fed up with the FOX Noise brand of journalism."
I guess that explains why Air America had such high ratings. Oh, wait. They're bankrupt.
"I really hope that Gore's book kicks off a backlash against those who have degraded and infantilized the national discussion for so long."
And with the help of Cindy Sheehan, Micheal Moore, Al Franken, and the Reverend Al Sharpton, that'll happen any day now. Oh, yes. Absolutely.
"I don't need to remind you that the majority of voters in 2000 actually did accept his view of the world,at least more than Bush"
Yes, the voters loved Gore so much, they re-elected Bush for a second term.
" , whose approval rating is lower than any recent President, even Carter."
Is it lower than Roosevelt's or Lincoln's? Their approval ratings were pretty low, too. Sorry, what were you saying?
"Gore's has every right to air his views, and the people have every right to assess them on their merits and respond, much as they did with An Inconvenient Truth."
Yup. Which pretty much explains why he'll never hold any political office of any significance ever again. The people have assessed, even if you can't accept that fact.
Emily, a private individual can accomplish much, but does not have the power to alter public and worldwide policy to the degree you believe.
It is always admirable when a person, any person, and not just ex-presidents or ex-PM's engage in work attempting to improve humanity. But public policy changes are ultimately only enacted by our elected officials.
Regards,
Q: To whom will the unelected Al Gore and unelected David Suzuki be held acountable, when they demand policies which may subsequently result in hurting people?
A: NOBODY.
Ummm. Gore was chosen by the majority of voters. He was unelected by the Supreme Court who stood in the way of having every vote counted in Broward County. Haven't you been paying attention for the past seven years?
Great. In other words, you are suggesting the democratic process is a complete waste of time, and we should defer to private individuals, like Gore, to set public policy. Not a very comforting thought. Personally, I prefer people who seek to determine public policy undergo the minor formality of, y'know, getting elected first.
Ironic, then, that people like you become all outraged if, for example, the president of a petroleum company, as a private individual, might seek to change public policy -- yet when professional, well-funded lobbyists like Al Gore or David Suzuki do the exact same thing, that's just fine with you.
But if you want to believe that Gore in any way represents the aspirations of mainstream society, well, you're welcome to continue deluding yourself.
"You won't like this example, but look at what Bill Clinton has been able to do with his foundation (funded by private donations) with regards to treating and improving the AIDS crisis in developing nations."
On the contrary. I like it just fine. I think Fred Clinstone's actions are commendable. AIDS is, after all, a real problem, with real solutions -- unlike one in particular I could mention. Who knows? Perhaps his charity work will slightly rehabilitate his shameful record as President?
Then again, Clinton's private efforts seem completely overshadowed the current Bush administration's plan for AIDS relief. Bush has comitted $15 billion to AIDS relief in Africa over the next five years. Let's see Clinton match that.
So, really, your claim that private individuals (even well-heeled ones) have more power than governments would seem to be without substance, and actually, are quite inaccurate.
There is an antridote available to you if you don't like O'Reilly et al. It is the "off" switch.
As for the Goracle, if anyone should know about an assault on reason, it is Wide Al.
John, you attack reason as you fail to acknowledge the science on climate change. Science is as close to reason as anything and you disagree with this reason when it comes to climate science. Therefore, your comment history here on DeSmogBlog is an assault on reason.
Or, as the old Russian expression has it -- you will die in those boots.
"If you claim to be reasonable and scientific, then it behooves you to accept ALL of science"
Eco-H*****, you accept no science. Just tabloid crap and PR imaginative BS.
E H said: "to accept ALL of science -- not just the bits which appeal to you and give you a warm fuzzy feeling".
Just what part of science are we not accepting? Please respond with authors' names, journal references and your "scientific" opinion.
Please note that articles from CEI, AEI, FOS, HI etc. do not count as science.
I'm sure that there are others on this site who would be willing to discuss any results of this nature you can dig up.
Ian Forrester
Hello to all, its my new pages about cloth
cloth diaper
You can buy here 24\7.
Hello nice blog! !!
boob
It's my new page.about shoes.
Hello! nice blog!
boob
My sites