Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 15, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

PLANET GORE...Paul Krugman on conservatives and Gore Derangement Syndrome:

If science says that we have a big problem that can't be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor's Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He's taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

As Krugman notes, the extent to which conservatives have turned opposition to global warming science into a personal jihad against Al Gore is breathtaking. He's "hectoring." He's "lecturing us." He's "holier than thou." Conservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming, but as the childish campaign against Gore shows, they also oppose any effort to simply persuade people as well. Their excuse? Gore and other campaigners are hypocrites unless they themselves live in caves and cut their own carbon footprints to zero. It's the kind of argument you'd expect to hear from a six-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.

For more on this, see pretty much any Bob Somerby post from the past seven or eight years.

Kevin Drum 12:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (120)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"Gore Derangement Syndrome"

Posted by: anonymous on October 15, 2007 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

The sheer stupidity and just rancid hate for Gore was on fine display this morning on Fox Crap On Sunday Morning. Bill "Sue me if I'm ever right" Kristol and Charles "Crippled in Mind AND Body" Krauthammer were there, and they were just nauseating, but that's the conservative style these days.

Posted by: POed Lib on October 15, 2007 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sure the next strategy of the FUD campaign will be an assault on the legitimacy of the Nobel Prize.

Posted by: Stefan Jones on October 15, 2007 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan: Next? It's already started.

But then, conservatives have always hated the Nobel Peace Prize. The committee keeps awarding it to advocates of peace, you see.....

Posted by: Kevin Drum on October 15, 2007 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINK

unless they themselves live in caves and cut their own carbon footprints to zero

No one argues this. Now, you are being hyperbolic, but is it too much for him to set an example? If he's not going to make any sacrifices, why should I? Maybe instead of a cave, he could splurge, and live in a single modest home? And instead of a carbon footprint of zero, he could live a little dangerously and perhaps reduce his only slightly? Or is sacrifice only for the little people? I can only conclude global warming is not quite the crisis he jets around the world claiming it is.

Posted by: Homer on October 15, 2007 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

I think the classic reaction was at the Corner. Not even a single sentence of graciousness for the man, and a lot of venomous posts.

Posted by: gregor on October 15, 2007 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

Christopher Hitchens, when he's not holding the goats down for, Mickey Kaus "reminds us" that Gore was once a stern advocate of the removal of Saddam Hussein, and that in office he might well not be the coward or apologist that the MoveOn.org crowd is still hoping to nominate. Oh, and he says Global Warming has nothing to do with peace (presumably because this war isn't being fought for oil.)

See! All us liberals are still cowards!

Posted by: so I am told on October 15, 2007 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Ya know FOX news should take its negative nelly schtick and start re-thinking their journalistic style [or lack of it]

Karls gone FOX, get over it, stop the idiocy.

Posted by: Ya Know... on October 15, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

"The dogs bark, the caravan passes." - Middle Eastern Proverb

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 15, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

I can only conclude global warming is not quite the crisis he jets around the world claiming it is.

Amazing that your base your opinion on the severity of global warming on a personality you don't like rather than the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

If he hadn't jetted around the world being an spokesman, making the movie, lecturing and so on reflexive, rightwing denialists wouldn't even be aware of global warming as a threat.

So I fail how to see your example of perceived hypocrisy works in any way.

Posted by: Old Hat on October 15, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

If Gore has no legitimacy to speak on global warming because he lives in a big house and flies in jets, then I suggest no Republican can speak about Christianity since they worship wealth and are sinners. In fact, from now on only Jesus Christ himself (speaking through the Bible) is allowed to advocate for his religion; everyone else has to shut up (that includes you, Your Holiness!)

Posted by: Bush Lover on October 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

If he's not going to make any sacrifices, why should I? -Homer
Well Im not gonna sacrifice anything until you do.
[this is elementary school logic, please try harder Homey and Clinton did it too!!]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gore was once a stern advocate of the removal of Saddam Hussein -So I am told

So was Bush Sr, but he decided to do it thru sanctions and other methods and that Saddam wasnt worth, thru war, destabilizing the middle east.

Posted by: Ya Know... on October 15, 2007 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

"...is breathtaking."

I demand a moratorium on this adjective unless used literally (also "breathtakingly"). All it does is imply that your corset is laced too tightly.

Posted by: Boronx on October 15, 2007 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

PK writes, "If science says that we have a big problem that can't be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed."

Is this an accurate potrayal of problem solving by Consertatives?

PK writes, "Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore..."

Does that mean everyone on the Right hates Gore? Some on the Right? Most on the Right? Hate?

Who's the one actually expressing hatred here?

KD writes, "As Krugman notes, the extent to which conservatives have turned opposition to global warming science into a personal jihad against Al Gore is breathtaking."

"personal jihad" "breathtaking"?

KD writes, "Conservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming,..."

Kevin,
Please tell me this one just slipped by the good sense filter, 'cause it sure do sound bigoted.

Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

I have long thought that the pundits who trashed Gore before and after the 2000 election have at least as much to answer for as those who such willing accomplices in the promotion of the Iraq war.

Really, if you didn't realize that Gore supposedly being a "phony", or wearing the wrong clothes, or sighing, or being too nerdy, was simply unworthy of mention compared to the potential for incompetent, rigid, and fanatical behavior in one George W Bush, then of what earthly use are you as a commentator on politics? If you get something so basic so wrong, why should anyone listen to you again, ever?

I'm talking about you, Frank Rich, and Maureen Dowd, and David Broder, and, I suppose, just about any pundit you may name.

You are all worthless. You have been proven so.

Posted by: frankly0 on October 15, 2007 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

...is it too much for him to set an example?...And instead of a carbon footprint of zero, he could live a little dangerously and perhaps reduce his only slightly? Homer 12:50 AM

Gore has reduced his carbon footprint to zero, as he advocates.

Posted by: Dave Howard on October 15, 2007 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

Soros has never given any money to anyone. He just gives it to organizations that do.

In the case of Hansen, it went through the Government Accountability Project. It was legal assistance Hansen got, not cash, and nowhere close to anything like $720,000. That amount seems to have come from a category in Soros' Foundation documents called "politicization of science," and it could have gone to many places besides Hansen.

Still, if Exxon was laundering donations so transparently to anti-warming scientists, none of you would buy it for a second.

Incidentally, Gore actually is "holier than thou," and as for hypocrisy, there's a hell of a wide gap between living in caves and buzzing around in private jets and owning multi-million dollar homes.

Posted by: harry on October 15, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

Incidentally, Gore actually is "holier than thou," and as for hypocrisy, there's a hell of a wide gap between living in caves and buzzing around in private jets and owning multi-million dollar homes.

Good point harry. USA Today exposes Gore for being the hypocrite he is by refusing to set an example.

www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

"Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself."

Posted by: Al on October 15, 2007 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Homer: "...but is it too much for him to set an example? If he's not going to make any sacrifices, why should I?"

If a person is a hypocrite, it could be suspected that he doesn't really believe in his message. He could just be selling carbon credits, or hitching his career to a rising comet issue. I believe Gore is sincere, though I find him repulsive; but a hypocrite is not the most inspiring messenger.

'm sure the next strategy of the FUD campaign will be an assault on the legitimacy of the Nobel Prize. Posted by: Stefan Jones

Is the prize for economics, which was initiated by the Swedish bank and not Alfred Nobel, legitimate? Are the winners tested for performance enhancing drugs?

Posted by: Luther on October 15, 2007 at 1:51 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think most people know the Peace Prize is political. The Committee even admits it.

Old Hat:

If he hadn't jetted around the world being an spokesman, making the movie, lecturing and so on reflexive, rightwing denialists wouldn't even be aware of global warming as a threat.

An amazing amount of information gets around this planet without someone having to fly around personally delivering it for gigantic speaking fees.

As for Gore being "carbon neutral," I'm not impressed by the phony indulgences. "Green Power Switch" cranks out about 2.1 million kilowatt-hours a month (average), of which the majority comes from the Windrock wind power site.

Gore's house uses up over 18,400 kilowatt-hours a month, which means he's using about one percent of the entire Tennessee Valley green generation capacity all by himself.

Posted by: harry on October 15, 2007 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

You can tell that it's Gore, not his message, that pisses right-wingers off most these days because they spend so much time trying to prove he's a hypocrite. I think increasingly they're giving up the intellectual battle on global warming, so they need some kind of consolation prize. "Sure, he's probably right, but he's so morally flawed how can I take him seriously?!?"

Of course, Republicans have been using variants of the Gore-uses-airplanes-and-has-big-houses-so-global-warming-isn't-real attack for a while. I remember vaguely last year some right-winger saying something like "How can John Edwards really care about the poor? Why, he's rich!"

Posted by: sweaty guy on October 15, 2007 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Al Gore did live in a cave and had reduced his carbon footprint to zero. Which do you think is the more likely response by the fringe Right? Would they 1) change their behavior, persuaded by Gore's noble example, or 2) find other reasons to avoid being responsible members of our interconnected society? Heh.

The difference between Bush Derangement Syndrome and Gore Derangement Syndrome is intriguing. In the one case, legitimate criticism of GWB's many, many failures is dismissed as Bush Derangement Syndrome. Whereas in the case of Gore Derangement Syndrome, the violence and irrational acts seem to intensify as his multiple insights and accomplishments grow.

Posted by: PTate in MN on October 15, 2007 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

Hypothetical question, where the premise has absolutely zero chance of happening, option 1 bestows nobility on an example that will never exist, option 2 assumes facts not in evidence, implying "other reasons" will be found to continue a behavior that is not being undertaken.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Heh?

"...the violence and irrational acts seem to intensify as his multiple insights and accomplishments grow."

Really?

Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK

PTate, you are so right. I mean, Ralph Nader doesn't drive out of principle and Jimmy Carter spends his old age roaming around Africa trying to cure river blindness. I've never heard of any right-winger cite them as huge influences on some emerging "green conservative" movement. (Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lot of GOPers love Ralph, but for entirely different reasons.)

Oh, maybe they're saying that they disagree with guys like this, but at least they "respect" them, unlike Gore. Well who cares if they respect him? If they were at all serious about reducing carbon emissions, they could feel free to hate Gore's guts.

As with universal health care and so many other issues, Republicans only introduce "character" as a distraction. it's more fun explaining to the GOP masses why they need to keep hating Gore than get into a serious debate about global warming. What was it Malkin said about serious debates being beneather her?

Posted by: sweaty guy on October 15, 2007 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK

I hear the chirping of crickets who simply repeat the very things Kevin is making fun of. Who knew insects could be retarded too?

Posted by: Kenji on October 15, 2007 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK

Walking the walk does mean living by the principles and conclusions that one espouses.

That should include reducing his carbon footprint in more than incidental ways. He has the money.

Many regard nature as their house, and only live in small heated areas. They think of their home as hundreds of thousands of square feet outside, but only 1000 (or 2000 if you really need an inside exercise room) or so as their heated home.

Also, the largest reason that global warming is occurring is the ABSENCE of businesses that address transportation, space heating, industrial, and energy generation needs in energy efficient manners.

It would be possible for Gore to encourage investment in mass or collective transit, space heating conservation, regional decentralized industrial production.

The political is an assist, but in many ways what is being asked is for government to bear the financial burden (taxpayers) of subsidizing too heavily.

Perhaps with democrats in more secure power, the combination of rational regulation and moderate government subsidy will help, more than the subsidy only approach of the Bush administration.

Posted by: Richard Witty on October 15, 2007 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINK

harry: "Gore's house uses up over 18,400 kilowatt-hours a month ..."

Do you and Al have any idea how juvenile you both sound, whining about Al Gore like a couple of jealous schoolgirls who weren't asked to the prom?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 15, 2007 at 4:28 AM | PERMALINK

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei.

Conservatives used to pride themselves on arguing facts, not emotion. Today's Conservatives have found it far more effective to ignore facts and instead scream lies and assassinate the characters of their opponents in order to avoid at all costs open debate on the merits of an issue or the worth of an individual they oppose.

It's the modern political analog of the Spanish Inquisition. And it's very effective.

Conservatives today behave like a cult - just take a look at this list of top 10 warning signs of a cult. Some examples from the two lists:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

The current incarnation of conservatives however place blind party loyalty above all else and treat dissent and opposition like heresy of the highest order that must be persecuted as vigorously and viciously as possible.

Why would they viciously attack (not just criticize) Gore over the Nobel Peace Prize? They're sending a message to Gore to stay out of the race: if Conservatives can coordinate a collective, unhinged character assassination against Gore over something as respectable and benign as a Nobel Peace Prize, just think about how much worse it will be if Gore were to actually enter the political race.

Gore's their worst nightmare. That's why they have attacked all of his very many real strengths (e.g. being an early and strong backer of the internet; raising the alarm on Global Warming ages ago; being vice president during one of the greatest periods of economic strength and domestic peace in our nation's history, etc.).

These people have no shame. They don't care about facts, reasons, right or wrong. They are amoral mercenaries with no loyalties beyond money and their political party. They pedal in fear, hate, and greed.

Pure and simple: they are enemies of decency, reason, peace, the rule of law, our constitution, and indeed our very country.

Posted by: Augustus on October 15, 2007 at 4:51 AM | PERMALINK

The amazing thing, and I know I'm nothing original here, is how the right and pigs like George W. Bush fight tooth-and-claw not to do anything, anything at all. It would have cost virtually nothing just to make companies obey the law or to adopt new technologies, and yet that's somehow heinous. It would take so little to retrofit coal factories. It would take so little to have new ones meet a certain standard.

Why force construction firms to use steel when they build skyscrapers? They might as well use pot metal.

Posted by: Anon on October 15, 2007 at 5:02 AM | PERMALINK

People should just call conservatives on the Gore Derangement Syndrome for what it is: a preemptive strike to discourage Gore from jumping in the race. Why? Because Gore is the GOP's nightmare candidate.

Posted by: Augustus on October 15, 2007 at 5:18 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives accusing others of being "holier than thou?"

That's rich.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on October 15, 2007 at 6:22 AM | PERMALINK

Krugman, as usual, is dead on accurate. What a better world this would be if the five conservative justices of Supreme Court had not disregarded the will of the people and appointed George W. Bush, the loser of the 2000 election, as president.

God bless Al Gore!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 15, 2007 at 6:38 AM | PERMALINK

Somerby doesn't focus so much on right-wing attacks on Gore, although quite a few of the stories originated on the right. He tends to focus one the major media spreading and reinforcing the lies about Gore. From the internet to Love Story to Love canal to the carbon footprint, major newspapers, TV and the writers and talking heads truly dislike Gore.

They mostly dislike him because he's been right. That's why he's called pedantic, the smartest kid in the room, the overweight, overbearing nerd. They just can't stand it.

Despite the MSM trashing Gore (who really cares what Fox says about him, their numbers don't influence elections) the right still wants to claim the media is liberal and unable to hide its biases.

You can see it here. The commenters want to tear Gore down using juvenile attacks like his house is too big, he's using energy, he's too rich. Why? Because they hate when they've been so very wrong about the major issues of the day and Gore has been so right so often.

Posted by: TJM on October 15, 2007 at 6:51 AM | PERMALINK

Reason why real global warming environmentalists should resent Gore:

By exaggerating the science behind his claims, by falsely claiming that no true, honest scientists dispute his arguments, by smearing skeptics as either corrupt or fools akin to Holocaust deniers, Al Gore has done the most of any man to create a determined resistance to his proposed policies.

His hypocritical lifestyle doesn't help either.

Posted by: ERF on October 15, 2007 at 6:55 AM | PERMALINK

"And instead of a carbon footprint of zero, he could live a little dangerously and perhaps reduce his only slightly? Or is sacrifice only for the little people? "

Damn, your on to him. Yes, Al Gore walks the streets at night sacrificing little people to his imaginary science gods. This is how he manages to maintain a negative carbon footprint.

Posted by: B on October 15, 2007 at 7:28 AM | PERMALINK

AH, yes, the wingnuts of the right do certainly seem to be becoming EVEN MORE unglued...making my every day!!! The past seven years have held little reason for pride or passion in my country...so I take great pleasure in watching the wheels come off...another Repug to retire in OHIO...YEAH!!! Blackwater being ordered OUT of Iraq...sadly I probably won't live long enough to see AMERICA restored...hope my grandkids can...

Posted by: Dancer on October 15, 2007 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

Actual scientists think that he fundamentally has the science right ERF. If you actually were a free-market supporter you'd applaud the carbon offsets that Gore uses. But you're now the Nth winger coming here and complaining that he has a "hypocritical lifestyle" instead. The right wing in the USA has truly gone off the rails.

Posted by: Marc on October 15, 2007 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and "Richard Witty" (if that's your real name, HA)...yes, and those who would be called Christians should be divesting themselves of their riches to help the poor of the WORLD before they profess to make our country behave like the Christian nation they want it to be ...as should BUSH AND LAURA have adopted some of those snowflake kiddies! Come on, try to argue like a grownup...

Posted by: Dancer on October 15, 2007 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming

Naturally?

max
['Why naturally?']

Posted by: max on October 15, 2007 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

Absolutely, Mr Drum, as usual you are so correct. Critic of Mr Gore couldn't possibly be serious expecting him to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

After all, burning crosses on the neighbor's lawn does nothing to impede the credibility of Brotherhood and Reconciliation advocates!

And carbon offsets, the Amway of the Concerned!

Posted by: Sparky on October 15, 2007 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

Hmm... hey, majarosh, fair's fair: YOU claim that multiple examples of conservative attacks on Gore prove nothing. Okay -- so produce ANY statements of admiration for Gore's achievements on global warning from ANY recognizably conservative outlet, or for that matter, even ONE conservative elected official.

A few quotes along the lines of 'well, we disagree on Kyoto, but the former Vice President has responded to his 2000 defeat in honorable fashion, proving that he has the courage of his convictions in travelling the world preaching the dangers of global warming. Hell, he even took his slide show to Grover Norquist's Wednesday Group, as tough an audience as can be found anywhere...' 'Course, I just made that up, although it's all true.

So produce even ONE real example.

Posted by: theAmericanist on October 15, 2007 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

I dont care about Al Gore one way or the other.
I believe one should lead by example!
I believe you cannot prove science by a vote and so far the science is not conclusive except in the minds of the ignorant and ill informed.
If they can give the Nobel Peace Prize to a terrorist like Arafat, what is the big deal about giving it to hypacrit (by the way paying someone else to keep the environment clean, that was allready going to do it, does not reduce your burdon on the environment. At least George Bush uses geothermal heat and personally leaves a smaller carbon footprint)?

Posted by: JD on October 15, 2007 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

Gore won't submit to a debate over his ridiculous movie and ignores every fact that says that AGW is simply from the sun [melting polar icecaps on Mars, etc....]

No serious member of the scientific community takes HIM seriously, although there are some indications that Global Warming is caused very slightly by human activity.

But the argumentation and "facts" Gore himself employs is ample evidence that the man himself is a complete fraud, hoaxer, impostor.

Is this the best the Dim-ocrats can muster in the candlepower department?

Richard Feynman called the Gore approach "Cargo Cult Science." The ever-honest Camille Paglia has to admit the fellow is "self-defeating," and the Oslo Committee has again cheapened the brand by putting this charlatan on the list.

If the left weren't so shameless, you'd be ashamed.

Posted by: daveinboca on October 15, 2007 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

He's "hectoring." He's "lecturing us." He's "holier than thou."

The best was from John Stossel, who went straight for the heart of the grumpy old man: "Do I want Al Gore telling me to turn off my air conditioning?" or something like that.

Anyway, from your post + comments, it sounds like ironically it's more the conservatives who are telling us to turn off our air conditioning, and Al Gore who is actually only arguing for cleaner emissions standards!

Posted by: Swan on October 15, 2007 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

The real reason conservatives and Republicans hate Gore so much is that he got more votes than their boy, who everyone, of course, would love to have a beer with. Oh, and he's been right and their boy has been such a pathetic failure and everyone knows it.

At least Republicans can't be accused of hypocrisy. Many of them are rich and advocate abolition of the estate tax, capital gains taxes and income taxes. These guys walk the walk, 100% self-interest. No class traitors among them.

Posted by: Pug on October 15, 2007 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

I'm an astrophysicist "daveinboca". One of the things I study is the Sun. And there is essentially no one in the solar community who thinks that the Sun is responsible for recent climate changes, even though that would help our grant funding. Go figure. Maybe we care about what the book of nature actually says.

I could go on about how Mars has an elliptical orbit, a thinner atmosphere, and a strong impact on climate from global dust storms. Or I could mention how hard it is to get a reliable global measurement there. Or how you would never measure any change in Martian climate from the sort of temperature changes that we see on Earth. But why bother? You don't know about the science behind these claims; they're just a convenient way to dismiss your political opponents.
Gore is substantively correct in his presentations. He isn't a scientist, but he does a very good job of translating science into public presentations. And the things he's been criticized for (ice sheet melting, for example, or connections between warming and hurricane strength) are active topics of debate in the literature. The accumulating weight of evidence is strongly leaning towards climate changing faster than predicted, not slower. By ignoring what is actually happening, the right wing in the USA is only ensuring that they have no place at the table to discuss what we should do about it.

Posted by: Marc on October 15, 2007 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

Hi,

As a Jewish liberal, I consider it my place to chime in + make sure the Jews are represented on this blog.

Al Gore is right on the money, Paul Krugman is a smart boy, and the conservatives are talking nonsense.

Posted by: Jewish Liberal on October 15, 2007 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Here is a link to Fox News video of grumpy old neobloviators Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer trying to throw night water on Al Gore and the Nobel Prize Committee.

Posted by: corpus juris on October 15, 2007 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

What it comes down to is class warfare.

Al Gore has class. The guy is right, and he is a great spokesman. He is now rich, and he got rich ethically, not by the standard conservaturd method of stealing from children.

So, those who hate people with class have to bring him down. We have a conservaturd like Al, who is wrong, and he is envious of Al's class.

Posted by: POed Lib on October 15, 2007 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

They don't hate Gore. He's just the annointed one for that particular issue. The conservative political style is to personalize every issue with a scapegoat. For example, they were absolutely bereft on the war until Cindy Sheehan came along. Then they fell on her like a ravening wolf on a crippled doe.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 15, 2007 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

dave, you need to look more closely into the claims of Habibullo Abdussamatov (whence came the Mars' CO2 caps are shrinking therefore Earth warming is caused by the sun). He's another crackpot that you sign on with. It's very consistent with the rest of your crackpot theories.

Here are some comments about the mad Russian:

“His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Also, dave, there's no particular reason why the sun causing temperature increases on Mars excludes Earth warming being man-made.

Posted by: TJM on October 15, 2007 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

I don't understand why the right wing noise machine is wasting time on Gore anyway, surely there's another twelve year old boy somewhere whose family hasn't sold their house for health insurance. Priorities, guys!

Posted by: gary on October 15, 2007 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Gore won't submit to a debate over his riiculous movie and ignores every fact that says that AGW is simply from the sun [melting polar icecaps on Mars, etc....]

Measured solar output is flat to down since 1950. If there were anything to an increase in irradiance behind GW there'd be an 11 year fluctuation in the record to match the changes in output due to sun spot activity. There isn't.

Martian icecaps melt whenever its orbit brings it closer.

Don't be stupid.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 15, 2007 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

It would be interesting to see what the 'winger arguments against AGW would be were Gore to enter a monastery and retire from public view. Probably they'd recant their errors and embrace reality. "Oh, well, with Gore gone, I have to admit that those gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere have warmed things up a bit. Time to break out the carbon tax."

Yup. It's easy to imagine that Gore's the only thing between them and sanity.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 15, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Martian icecaps melt whenever its orbit brings it closer.

Oh yeah, I remember reading about that when I was a kid. Incidentally, I read one of those '60s science fiction books, which was based totally on Mars, when I was a kid, and it was scientifically accurate as to climate and geological facts-- Mars is a very interesting planet.

Posted by: Swan on October 15, 2007 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Yup. It's easy to imagine that Gore's the only thing between them and sanity.

Well we were somewhat a saner party before Al Gore was born, it's true. But it was actually the birth of young Rosie O'Donnell that sent us right out of our flippin' minds.

Posted by: The American Republican Party on October 15, 2007 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

"Hmm... hey, majarosh, fair's fair: YOU claim that multiple examples of conservative attacks on Gore prove nothing"-the Americanist

Hmm...nope. I made no such claim, though it would be a reasonable argument for supporters of Gore's crusade.

My point is, here's another important issue that should be discussed rationally by all that gets turned into another pissing contest by some from both sides.

One internet group I belong to is comprised of folks from both sides of the political spectrum and has an "anything goes" policy on topics. Disagreements abound, point and counter point are made, passionate arguments are common. We can be nit-picking jerks, stubbornly opinionated and empty of common sense, all at the same time. When someone is shown they are mistaken, they admit it and the world does not end. Behaviors that get slammed the quickest and the hardest are putting words in someone's mouth and blatantly unfair accusations. And strands of humor run through the entire thread.
Another similiar site sends overheated arguments off forum and bans name-calling with one exception,"[insert name], you ignorant slut.

I'm not advocating,"Can't we all just get along." But Shirley, we can live and let live.

Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

Of course there would be a "Sparky" spouting right wing venom. Sigh. Not me. . .
The topic of Al Gore has really summoned forth the trolls. Dealing with a catastrophe is important. The idea that global warming should be ignored until it defeats us is typical GOP planning! Better to attack the science or the messenger. Much easier. Much less hard work. More profits.

Posted by: Sparko on October 15, 2007 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Forget about all that science stuff. Since Al Gore maybe uses a lot of electricity, global warming can't be a real problem.

It's nice when we can simplify these big "complex" problems so that everybody can understand them.

Posted by: frankly0 on October 15, 2007 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

harrt: most people know the Peace Prize is political.

Peace is inherently political. You think the prize should go to the guy with the biggest d**k or something?

Posted by: thersites on October 15, 2007 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

I read a lot of right wing stuff, and I just don't buy the idea that the right hates Al Gore. Sure, they're happy to point out aspects where he may have exaggerated the global warming threat, but I just don't see hate. Rush Limbaugh calls him "Algore", with the accent on the first syllable, like "algae", but that's a tease, not hate. Contrary to Krugman's assertion, there is no Gore Derangement Syndrome.

I would second Kevin suggesion of reading Bob Somerby. Somerby was a roommate of Gore (and Tommy Lee Jones) at Harvard. Over the years, Somerby has focused accurately and in detail on how the media mistreated Al Gore.

But, Kevin is wrong if he means to imply that Somerby's blog shows how the right mis-treated
Gore. What Somerby mostly shows is that Gore was often mistreated by the main-stream media, most of whom are Democrats.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 15, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not advocating,"Can't we all just get along." But Shirley, we can live and let live.

No, and this is why you are wrong: liberals hate America.

They want to see the way of life you and I enjoy turned into a seething carcass full of maggots so they can point to it and say, "we toldya Bush was a bad man!" Nothing excites them like another non-event like a fat man getting a prize from someone who isn't even an American!

Gore won because he paid off the right people. No doubt, George Soros decided to play kingmaker and had the Nobel committee figure out a way to link climate change to world peace through some shadowy conflation of insanity and switchgrass or some other nonsense and there you have it--Gore wins, the world *loses.* There is no global warming. A lot of things are melting because, in nature, ICE does IN FACT melt. It's like the whole world got stuck on stupid one day. ICE MELTS! Did you know that? It melts because things are slightly warmer. Once the ice has melted, and the climate switches back to being colder--and that's because everything in the Natural order has *cycles*--the WATER WILL FREEZE AGAIN. Don't you people know about "CYCLES?" Or have you never been in an office with twenty women who, all of a sudden, after working together for 90 days, are all suddenly fat and crabby on the same day?

Once everyone sees that, in order to get a Nobel prize, you have to gain weight, scream at PowerPoint slides, and wear loosefitting jeans, the world will be consumed by copycats.

And as I look to the right of this blog page--what are these cats doing, being impaled on a pole? Are they pole dancing? You liberals are encouraging impaled cats to pole dance? What the deuce is that all about?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Somerby says that the "liberal press" such as Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd et al reviles Gore in order to keep their snobby liberal club small and exclusive.

I don't know if it's so, but it would explain a lot.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on October 15, 2007 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

There is no global warming. A lot of things are melting because, in nature, ICE does IN FACT melt. It's like the whole world got stuck on stupid one day. ICE MELTS! Did you know that? It melts because things are slightly warmer. Once the ice has melted, and the climate switches back to being colder--and that's because everything in the Natural order has *cycles*--the WATER WILL FREEZE AGAIN

There's nothing independent out there called a cycle. Certain forces vary over time. So, what force, Norman, is different now? There's no El Nino, right now. (El Ninos pop up now and again, but they're yearly phenomena. They don't persist.) There's no orbital oddity such as the ones that bring on ice ages. Solar has held steady since 1950 or so. If there's a cycle, there has to be an identifiable force that you're talking about. What could be strong enough to cause temps to rise so high since 1970. You're pretending to have the answer so you must have something in reserve, surely. Some secret ingredient that thousands of scientists have missed. Phlogiston or polywater or something. Hyper-extended aether, maybe. You wouldn't want the world to think you're a gasbag of such magnitude that YOU could be the cause of AGW.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 15, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

A lot of things are melting because, in nature, ICE does IN FACT melt.

brilliant!

we at least need this idiot for some comic relief.

Posted by: haha on October 15, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

//BREAKING NEWS//


Supreme Court Gives Gore's Nobel to Bush
Stunning Reversal for Former Veep


Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on global warming, the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Nobel and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead.


For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of the Nobel committee and the world, the high court's decision to give his prize to President Bush was a cruel twist of fate, to say the least.


But in a 5-4 decision, the justices made it clear that they had taken the unprecedented step of stripping Mr. Gore of his Nobel because President Bush deserved it more.


"It is true that Al Gore has done a lot of talking about global warming," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority. "But President Bush has actually helped create global warming."


Even as Mr. Gore was being stripped of his Nobel, he received strong words of support from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who said that the former vice president's Nobel win "shows that he is devoting his life to the right thing and should definitely stay the course."


In an interview with reporters in Iowa, Sen. Clinton said that "Al Gore should remain dedicated to the cause of global climate change, at least through November of 2008."


Sen. Clinton suggested that Mr. Gore could further research the source of global warming by immediately boarding a rocket ship to the sun.


Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

If they can give the Nobel Peace Prize to a terrorist like Arafat...

Yeah, go figure why they gave Nixon's butt boy Henry Kissinger -- who, along with Tricky Dick, approved secret bombing missions in Cambodia -- a Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. Did I mention Kissinger also negotiated U.S. troop withdrawals from South Vietnam? Must make warmongering wingnut hearts swell with pride.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on October 15, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

There's nothing independent out there called a cycle. Certain forces vary over time. So, what force, Norman, is different now? There's no El Nino, right now. (El Ninos pop up now and again, but they're yearly phenomena. They don't persist.)

No such thing as a cycle? In Nature>??? Are you insane? Have you never heard that deep buzzing sound in the back of your head, emanating from 20 very bloated and very touchy women who have all had their cycles come together in one massive fit of menstruation? You are insane.

The Earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the Earth. These cause yearly and monthly cycles. If there are, in fact, yearly and monthly cycles, does it not prove that there are hundred year, thousand year, and ten thousand year cycles which could explain Global Warming?

There's no orbital oddity such as the ones that bring on ice ages. Solar has held steady since 1950 or so. If there's a cycle, there has to be an identifiable force that you're talking about. What could be strong enough to cause temps to rise so high since 1970. You're pretending to have the answer so you must have something in reserve, surely. Some secret ingredient that thousands of scientists have missed.

See above--you don't know that all these things are, in fact, true. You're presupposing they are, but we haven't got enough hard data to prove you're correct. And, check me if I'm wrong, but the same scientists with the same data and the same methods told me, in 1975, that we were heading for an Ice Age. I bought thousands of dollars worth of goose down products. I invested in a wood burning stove for my vacation property. Sucks to be me! Worthless!

Phlogiston or polywater or something. Hyper-extended aether, maybe. You wouldn't want the world to think you're a gasbag of such magnitude that YOU could be the cause of AGW.

I'm not a gasbag nor am I anything other than a true Patriot. This country is going to hell in a handbasket and I'm going to take a razor blade and cut holes in the handbasket so the people I like can slip out of the handbasket and have a good life. You liberals can go suck eggs and wear a thong for all I care.

When did liberals start hating cats? Now I see a giant thermometer full of mercury, waiting to crush a poor defenseless kitty who has his front legs stretched out like Willem Dafoe being shot in the back by the North Vietnamese Army in Platoon.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Maja, if yer gonna bitch about folks making bullshit arguments, don't make one, yourself.

You quoted "...the violence and irrational acts seem to intensify as his multiple insights and accomplishments grow."

Then posted: "Really?"

Which I observed meant that you "claim that multiple examples of conservative attacks on Gore prove nothing.."

So you promptly denied you'd made that claim -- but of course you did; it's what your words mean.

Ya wanna raise the level of discourse about the level where you are evidently most comfortable? Respond to my challenge -- produce ANY example of an identifiably national conservative voice that has said of Gore 'attaboy!' for his longstanding, efforts on global warming.

Cuz otherwise, in good Anglo-Saxon and not at all abusive, the fact is: you're full of shit.

Posted by: theAmericanist on October 15, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

No such thing as a cycle? In Nature>??? Are you insane?

You're purposefully mis-understanding. There's no independent thing out there called a "cycle". (Which I've already specifically said. You're indulging in that ordinary cycle of 'winger debate: quote mining.)

See above--you don't know that all these things are, in fact, true.

Well, yes, I do. There's this technique you don't appear familiar with. It's called "measuring".

I'm not a gasbag

Proof is the pudding, buster. (Of course, I may be responding to Imitation Norman, the Comic Grotesque.)

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 15, 2007 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: I read a lot of right wing stuff

You don't say.

Posted by: Gregory on October 15, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

I just don't see hate. Rush Limbaugh calls him "Algore", with the accent on the first syllable, like "algae", but that's a tease, not hate.

Oh Okaaay.

Posted by: ckelly on October 15, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

I hear the chirping of crickets who simply repeat the very things Kevin is making fun of.

Gore himself is like a cricket: the talking cricket who was Pinocchio's guilty conscience. (I'm referring to the book, not the Disney movie.)

Posted by: mim on October 15, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK
….here's another important issue that should be discussed rationally by all that gets turned into another pissing contest by some from both sides…majarosh at 10:02 AM
Although it is members of the right and the oil-financed interests doing 'pissing' on the issue, there are always some to try to claim both sides do it. You really should examine the issue before spouting off: there is science and empirical evidence on one side, and unsubstantiated claims of bias on yours as witnessed by daveinvaca, Homer, harry, ex-lax, ab-norman, al, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Rush and hundreds of other rightwing nutjobs.
I read a lot of right wing stuff, and I just don't buy the idea that the right hates Al Gore…. ex-lax at 10:39 AM
You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. We've all remarked on how insufficient they are. Your comments illustrate that no matter what the facts, your allies will never cease cease sliming, which is a classic symptom of Gore Derangement Syndrome. Posted by: Mike on October 15, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

The six year old was right. If you are right, you should be able to argue.

What fairy gave Gore the privalage to go around driving his footprint as deep as he wants and at the same time tell us to tread lightly. Sounds like just because he has money, power and hangs out with the popular people, he thinks he doesn't have to play by the same rules he wants us to.

If he truely wanted the world to take him serious, he could at least try and appear like he was making a difference like Ed Baggley Jr.

The secret to success is sincerity.
If you can fake that you've got it made.

If you know the science, you know the lie! So far the Global Warming crowd can only come up with "we think" therefore it ain't science yet.

What effect does percipitation have on global warming?
What effect does the earth's shifting core have on global warming?
What effect does solar winds have on global warming?
What balancing effects does the earth have to shift temperature from extremes?
What is the normal temperature of the earth? Says who?

[You have made your point. Repetition is not debate, and if you have nothing further to add, further commentary will be deleted. --Mod]

Posted by: JD on October 15, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Wow! Convicted criminal Norman Rogers has really gone off the tracks. I always thought that he was crazier than a runover dog, and he is really proving it today!

Could the moderator please just ban this lunatic for his own good? I worry he is going to pick up a knife and start stabbing the cabana boy or someone else nearby, in his rage over Al Gore's Nobel prize! Sheesh...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 15, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

The argument "Gore lives in a big house, so why should I believe him about global warming" is such a non-sequitur that it's completely impossible to rebut. As Spock said, "Logic is a beautiful flower that smells bad!"

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on October 15, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Mike: Your comments illustrate that no matter what the facts, your allies will never cease cease sliming, which is a classic symptom of Gore Derangement Syndrome.

Mike, why do you think your cited article represents my allies? AFAIK Greg Easterbrook is a moderate Democrat. He's at the Brookings Institution, which is a moderately liberal organization. He's writing in the New York Times, which is now far left.

I would also question your definition of "sliming." All Easterbrook did was to point out accurately that Gore has a large house and to discuss the effectiveness of carbon offsets. That's a far cry from epithets like "chimpy" and "Bushitler", not to mention calling yours truly "ex-lax."

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 15, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Gore should take people at their words. We should get everyone who complains about Gore's hypocrisy to sign the following pledge:

If Al Gore gives up his huge house and stops using jets to travel around the world, then I promise to dedicate my life to fighting global warming.

If we can get 10 million signatories, maybe Al will do it. How about it, all you people saying "Gore is a hypocrite". Will you sign such a pledge?

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on October 15, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

If he (JD) truely wanted the world to take him serious... he could learn the language. Welcome to America. Now write English!

Posted by: thersites on October 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Wow! Convicted criminal Norman Rogers has really gone off the tracks. I always thought that he was crazier than a runover dog, and he is really proving it today!

Though I am convicted, my pardon is in the works. The lawyers tell me that, Christmas Eve of this year, I should be included in a group of pardons to be issued by the White House. This will allow me to return to the investment banking business with full access to certain areas and I will spend the next two or three years cementing my retirement.

And it's "crazier than a shit house rat" and not crazier than a run over dog. A dog that has been run over is not crazy; it is lying on the ground dead and cannot move or exhibit signs of insanity. A shit house rat runs around biting and clawing and shrieking for no reason. And if you attempt to engage me in a battle of wits, I will go through you like shit through a goose.

Could the moderator please just ban this lunatic for his own good? I worry he is going to pick up a knife and start stabbing the cabana boy or someone else nearby, in his rage over Al Gore's Nobel prize! Sheesh...

The interns who moderate this blog are under orders from Mr. Charles Peters, who has accepted several donations from me in the past. I have donated approximately $4,000 to this organization and if they even *think* about banning me, harrassing me, or moderating me, I will have my friend Charles turn their internship into a trip into oblivion.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Have you never heard that deep buzzing sound in the back of your head, emanating from 20 very bloated and very touchy women who have all had their cycles come together in one massive fit of menstruation? You are insane.

And you're offensive. Or obsessed with this idea, since you keep bringing it up.

Or maybe both.

Posted by: gemini on October 15, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

I thought the topic of this thread was the over the top commentary regarding Gore's Peace Prize and the debate over the science of climate change. That's what I commented about, the rhetoric

The certainty with which some claim to know what I mean or where I stand in the global warming debate is laughable. Rather than ask me what I meant when I wrote, "Really?" or where I stand on the debate, I'm told by all-knowing, all-seeing, self-appointed deciders of fact.
Really.

Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

"See above--you don't know that all these things are, in fact, true. You're presupposing they are, but we haven't got enough hard data to prove you're correct."

From those subversives at the US DoE:

"Observations and climate model results confirm that human-induced warming of the planet is having a pronounced effect on the atmosphere’s total moisture content."

"sing 22 different computer models of the climate system and measurements from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), atmospheric scientists from LLNL and eight other international research centers have shown that the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world’s oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of this ‘atmospheric moistening’ is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels."

http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-09-02.html

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the great Satan on October 15, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Norm Rogers said:

"It's like the whole world got stuck on stupid one day."

No, just you.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on October 15, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

First, the "right" denies the reality of global warming because the so-called "right" in America today is nothing but a bought-and-paid-for creation of America's ultra-rich corporate ruling class, in particular the richest of the ultra-rich, the giant multinational fossil fuel corporations.

The agenda of those corporations is to reap the trillions of dollars in profits to be made from extracting and burning the world's remaining oil and coal before it runs out, and to do this as soon as possible.

Thus they do not want anything to slow the growing, and indeed accelerating, consumption of fossil fuels, let alone reduce fossil fuel consumption by 80-90 percent worldwide within a decade or so, which is what's required if we have any hope of preventing the worst outcomes of global warming. Thus they use their bought-and-paid for right-wing extremist propaganda machine to loudly deny the reality of global warming, to keep the public confused and unmotivated to demand a clean energy transition from both government and the private sector. The mental slaves of the "right" -- from Rush Limbaugh down to bottom-feeding "blog trolls" like "ex-liberal" -- are just obediently reciting Exxon-Mobil's scripted talking points.

Second, independently of his role as a leader on the global warming issue, Gore is obediently hated by the mental slaves of the "right" for the simple reason that Al Gore won the 2000 Presidential election and is the legitimately elected President of the United States of America, whereas George W. Bush is not now, and has never been, the legitimately elected President but is instead a gangster and a thug, whose family's political machine stole the 2000 election through the most shocking and blatant fraud in the history of American politics. (Actually, the theft involved multiple frauds, from the deliberate disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of eligible African-American Democratic voters in Florida by Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris, to the fraudulent Supreme Court decision that prevented the state of Florida from fully counting all legally submitted ballots in conformance with long-established Florida election law.)

The minions of the "right" must hate Gore, and must loudly attack, slime and ridicule him at all times, in order to distract attention from the fact that Bush is a thief who stole the Presidency and the "Bush administration" is nothing but a gang of career corporate criminals and war profiteers that has no legitimacy and is raiding the US Treasury and misusing the US military for corrupt purposes of private financial gain.

When these two prime targets of the corporate-funded phony "right" coincide in the person of Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for educating the world about global warming, we see the results of which Paul Krugman writes, which are rather ironically and humorously exemplified by the antics of the right-wing mental slaves who have posted comments here whining that Krugman is wrong.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 15, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: I read a lot of right wing stuff, and I just don't buy the idea that the right hates Al Gore... ...But, Kevin is wrong if he means to imply that Somerby's blog shows how the right mis-treated Gore. What Somerby mostly shows is that Gore was often mistreated by the main-stream media, most of whom are Democrats.

Bwahahahaha! You are so full of bullshit!

Post up cites from Somerby's The Daily Howler to back up your claim that "most" of the mistreatment aimed at Gore comes from the mostly Democratic MSM. C'mon, I dare you. This I've got to see!

Here's a cite that contradicts your false premise.

From the incomparable archives of The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby himself from Dec. 3, 2002, Tues.:

But in October, CIA head Tenet made that assessment, and Gore has cited it in his critiques. Last week, though, Fred Barnes joined the rest of the gang; like the other spinners at Fox, he pretended that Gore was just inventing his al Qaeda assessment (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/26/02 and 11/27/02). Now Barnes at least seems to acknowledge what Tenet has actually said.
Too bad his buddy just keeps on dissembling. In the current Roll Call, Morton Kondracke continues his descent to the lowest level of anti-Gore hacks. He keeps pretending he just doesn’t know what Gore could mean about al Qaeda. In various statements about al Qaeda, Gore has specifically cited the assessment by Tenet. But it looks like Mort doesn’t want you to know. Mort just keeps spinning you blue.
But someone else offended more grievously on last weekend’s Fox News Sunday. That was Charles Krauthammer, serving up a remarkable statement about Gore’s critique of the press. Gore had said that Fox, Rush and the Washington Times “are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party” (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/29/02). And Gore had said this: “Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks—that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what’s objective as stated by the news media as a whole.” When Tony asked Mara what Gore could have meant, Mara got busy finessing:
LIASSON: Well, I think that what Al Gore is expressing is deep frustration on the part of Democrats who are now truly out of power in Washington, and they don’t have the kind of editorial voice representing them in the media. There is no doubt that the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Times or the New York Post or the commentary on Fox is conservative. And I think that they are extremely frustrated. They can’t get their events covered. They feel that they can’t get their message out. Now, having a message in the first place is another question. But I think that’s a real kind of cry of frustration from Al Gore, and other Democratic leaders have said the same thing.
Mara finessed the point nicely. To state the obvious, Gore hadn’t claimed that the “editorial page” at the Times was conservative; who on earth didn’t know that? He had claimed that Fox and the Times channel RNC spin, and that RNC spin increasingly becomes Conventional Wisdom in the mainstream press too. But while Mara flawlessly sidestepped Gore’s point, Krauthammer decided to crawl in the slime. Try to believe that he said it
LIASSON: But I think that’s a real kind of cry of frustration from Al Gore, and other Democratic leaders have said the same thing.
KRAUTHAMMER: Crying for help, you know. (LAUGHTER) I’m a psychiatrist. I don’t usually practice on camera. But this is the edge of looniness, this idea that there’s a vast conspiracy, it sits in a building, it emanates, it has these tentacles, is really at the edge. He could use a little help.
What a slimy man Krauthammer turns out to be! Krauthammer—a former and now misbehaving shrink—thinks Gore’s remarks on the press are “loony.” What a slimy—and deeply dishonorable—man this Great Pundit turns out to be.
Readers, were Gore’s remarks “loony?” A sad cry for help? Yesterday, we linked you to a set of well-known and thoroughly bogus spin-points that came to you straight from the RNC. Today we visit The Mother of All Spins from Campaign 2000—the much-flogged claim that “delusional” Gore said he invented the Internet. That spin anchored the press corps’ twenty-month War Against Gore—and the corps got it straight from the RNC. The process was precisely what Gore is describing. But to one slimy man, Gore needs help.
As you will see below, when Gore made his comment about the Internet, no one in the press corps said one word about it. Two news cycles came and went—and no reporter in the country said a word about what Gore had said. The reason? Reporters knew that Gore had been the leader, within the Congress, in developing what we now call the Net. And because your news orgs all knew this fact, no one showed the slightest sign of thinking that Gore had said something unusual. But when the RNC began to peddle that claim, the press corps quickly leaped into action. They called Gore a liar for twenty months—once the RNC put out the line.
A slimy fellow thinks Gore needs help. But it’s the American people who really need help, held hostage by spinner/dissemblers like Krauthammer. Do RNC spin-points script the press? Let’s take a walk down memory lane. Who invented invented the Internet? It was, of course, the RNC, handing its scripts to the press.
Click the Somerby link above for more revelations with plenty mo' links and mo' proof that ex-liberal is full of rightwing propaganda bullshit.

And, if anyone wants more recent examples of attacks against Gore from rightwing sycophants as documented by Somerby, it will require reading comprehension and diligence to scour The Daily Howler's archive than someone like ex-liberal is capable of doing.

Hey, ex-lib. Do you know what RNC stands for? Hint: It is not Democratic.

He's at the Brookings Institution, which is a moderately liberal organization.

Only in your fantasies.

From FAIR in 1998:

To this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed "liberal" (e.g., Baltimore Sun, 8/9/98; Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/30/98; Dallas Morning News, 7/1/98; AP, 5/29/98). CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg even publicly chastised one of his colleagues for not tagging Brookings as "liberal" in his reporting (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 2/13/96). It's called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal."
In fact, much of Brookings' top brass has come from Republican administrations. Its current president, Michael Armacost, was an undersecretary of state for the Reagan administration and ambassador to Japan under Bush. Brookings' president from 1977 to 1995, Bruce MacLaury, spent most of his career in the Federal Reserve, with a stint in the Nixon Treasury Department.
Another cite (which ex-lib isn't too swift on providing) from SourceWatch on the Brookings Institution:
Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

He's writing in the New York Times, which is now far left.

Bwahahahaha! You really are a jokester!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on October 15, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

"What effect does percipitation have on global warming?

Try http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-09-02.htm

for effects of global warming on moisture content.

BTW, it's 'precipitation'

"What effect does the earth's shifting core have on global warming?"

You're talking about a process (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040517/full/news040517-13.html) which tooks millions of years to move continents 700 million years ago, and which even its major proponent believes is much attenuated now.

What evidence do you have that it has intensified in the past 150 years?

"What effect does solar winds have on global warming?"

Seeing as solar wind would have an 11 year cycle with the sunspots, whatever effect it would have would manifest in 11 year cycles. We don't see that.

"What balancing effects does the earth have to shift temperature from extremes?"

Err, lots, but the CO2 feedback loop is one of the primary long-term. Over geological epochs, the temperature of the Earth has been more stable than solar output alone would merit.

Google "Gaia hypothesis". Then Google "James Lovelock global warming" to see what state the originator of the Gaia hypothesis thinks we're in.

"What is the normal temperature of the earth? Says who?"

You haven't read a single flippin' scientific paper on this, have you. Almost all papers dealing with the AGW hypothesis use a temperature anomaly: i.e. the temperature in the model or observations normalized against average temperature readings from 1951-1990.

"If you know the science, you know the lie!"

If by science, you mean "randomly posting terms from earth science and meteorology hoping that noone call me on my ignorance".

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on October 15, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

The mental slaves of the "right" -- from Rush Limbaugh down to bottom-feeding "blog trolls" like "ex-liberal" -- are just obediently reciting Exxon-Mobil's scripted talking points.

Hey! I resent the insinuation!
XOM rose 1.6% to a new 52 week high of $95.10. During the last 52 weeks, XOM's price has ranged from $68.42 on October 16, 2006 to today's high of $95.10.

Posted by: Exxon-Mobil on October 15, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

LOL -- Maja, I merely assumed that you meant the words you used. You evidently don't like being held accountable for what YOU say, although you complain how others speak.

Why is that?

Posted by: theAmericanist on October 15, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Disappointed-theAm, You don't know what I meant. You don't want to know what I meant. You don't care what I meant.

Why is that?

Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Smearing Al Gore: Here We Go Again
By Robert Parry
October 13, 2007
When people wonder how the United States ended up in today’s nightmarish predicament, a big part of the answer is that the right-wing message machine and the mainstream U.S. news media distorted reality at key moments about key people, perhaps most notably Al Gore during Campaign 2000.
...
But even now – when the consequences of the news media’s earlier “war on Gore” can be measured in the horrible death toll that has followed the Bush presidency – it appears that little has changed.
Lies and distortions about Al Gore remain an easy political commodity to sell, as we have seen in the renewed assault on Gore in the wake of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize...

And if you attempt to engage me in a battle of wits….ab-Norman Rogers at 1:44 PM
Yet you always march bassackwards, unarmed.

Ex-lax, neither the Brookings Institute, the New York Times, nor the Washington Post rate as liberal institutions save in your perfervid imagination. Not being an RNC house organ does not "liberal media" make.


Posted by: Mike on October 15, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives holler that "Gore should lead by example."

Interesting point. I wish they had raised it when chicken hawks like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and Wolfowitz sent our children off to fight in Iraq.

I'd like to see them raise this point the next time someone like Gingrich or Lott or Guiliani etc., etc. starts yelling about the sanctity of marriage and the family.

You conservative critics, you lead by example: don't level charges of hypocrisy against Gore unless you are willing to level the same charges against the blindingly obvious failings of your own poster boys. Pull that log out of your own eye before you criticize Gore, boys. Or admit that the message is more important that the messenger and sit down.

Posted by: GuardedOptimist on October 15, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

You conservative critics, you lead by example: don't level charges of hypocrisy against Gore unless you are willing to level the same charges against the blindingly obvious failings of your own poster boys.

This is exactly right - any "hypocrisy" by Gore pales besides the hyperhypocrisy right wingers hold. Hypocrisy involves bragging or advocating a standard you don't hold yourself to - when you get right down to it, is there *any* policy or issue where Republicans *don't* do this?

"Keeping America Safe"? How - by pissing off the rest of the world and giving our port security to the highest foreign bidder? With terrorism a bigger threat now than in 2001?

"A strong military"? Our military is nearly broken thanks to their antics in the Middle East.

"Financial Responsibility"? After turning a surplus into a record deficit?

"Family Values"? With their stable of page molesters and bathroom fornicators in Congress?

"Smaller Government"?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Heck, forget about actually being hypocritical about an issue. Before lobbing accusations against Gore, right wingers have to pick a standard, any standard, that they can be held hypocritical *about*. (Aside, of course, from blindly following their leaders and hating liberals. To that their dedication and sincerity is beyond doubt.)

Posted by: a1 on October 15, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

The Nobel committee missed a chance to end the US occupation of Iraq. If they had offered W. Bush the Nobel Peace Prize, for disbanding the Iraqi Army, in exchange for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, W. Bush might have accepted. This ploy might have worked had the committee said otherwise they were going to give the prize to Gore.

Posted by: Brojo on October 15, 2007 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Well, gee, Maja, if I don't know what you think, it's only cuz you don't mean what you say.

"You quoted "...the violence and irrational acts seem to intensify as his multiple insights and accomplishments grow."

Then posted: "Really?"

Which I observed meant that you "claim that multiple examples of conservative attacks on Gore prove nothing.."

So you promptly denied you'd made that claim -- but of course you did; it's what your words mean."

There's no other way a literate person can read your "Really?" except as a denial and refutation of the preceding claim. Since the preceding sentence was precisely 'multiple examples of conservative attacks on Gore', your "really" can ONLY mean 'these prove nothing'.

Which is what I said. I read what you wrote for what it meant -- not used to that, are you?

If you want to stop folks from understanding what you think, stop talking -- or OWN your words, which includes taking responsibility for what they mean when you've said 'em.

LOL -- look, I'm GIVING you the chance to elevate the discussion, on YOUR OWN TERMS. Since you've dissed the proposition on which the thread is based, that Gore's critics have made it about HIM instead of his cause, cuz they have nothing substantive to say about the cause, well: show us where ANY conservative of even minimal national stature has said anything generous about Gore for standing up against global warming.

This narrow point isn't about global warming as such, in fact for the sake of argument it concedes a central point in dispute for the critics: it is AS IF reasonable people can disagree about it. (which, in fact, is not so: if you don't believe the world is getting warmer, you're by definition unreasonable -- cuz it is: dem's de facts, jack.)

But IF critics of global warming believed and acted AS IF reasonable people would disagree over what to do about it, Gore's achievements -- a couple Oscars, an Emmy, and a Nobel -- would make it possible to find a critic or two who neverthless lauded Gore's dedication: he is surely the most successful UNsuccessful candidate for the Presidency in history -- Goldwater notwithstanding, since Goldwater's achievement was Reagan: Gore did all this himself.

It doesn't MATTER what you think about global warming, if you bother to speak to the point. It's not about YOU, it's about what you claimed was your, oh, so pious call for a higher level of debate. That's not hard to get -- not with me, anyway. But: Tokhis oyfn tish, willya?

You are either arguing that 1) The many examples of mean-spirited and false attacks by conservatives on Gore prove nothing (which is what I noted you'd said, but you denied), in which case you don't HAVE an argument, OR 2) those many examples are not definitive, they may not even be typical of conservatives (as you lamely attempted to argue), in which case it oughta be easy to find examples.

Well? Got any?

Posted by: theAmericanist on October 15, 2007 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like the Americanist has our new "manners troll" majarosh neatly pinned into a corner. So tell us, maja, now that Paul has cut through your bullshit, just what IS your point, if any, about Gore's unjustifiable mistreatment by conservatives? That we should overlook the outrageous behavior towards Gore by leading conservative spokesmen because global warming is too important an issue to have a "pissing match" about?

Well I hate to break it to you, but conservatives have made this a pissing match by pissing on the science, politicizing government institutions tasked with tackling the science of this issue, and attacking or trying to silence the messengers, whether they be scientists or politicians.

We've been around the block enough times to know that when someone says we should overlook the behavior of conservatives, it means that they are blind to the misdeeds of their ideological kin and uncomfortable hearing about them.

In answer to your questions:

"If science says that we have a big problem that can't be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed." Is this an accurate potrayal of problem solving by Consertatives?

It accurately describes recent conservative responses to scientific issues which are at odds with their ideology, yes. This includes the subject of evolution as well as global warming. I can produce about a thousand cites if you'd like.

Does that mean everyone on the Right hates Gore? Some on the Right? Most on the Right? Hate?

It's probably fair to say "most on the right." But trying to make an issue about a generalization for the purposes of this discussion is disingenuous. Let's see: if Ann Coulter said Gore is a "total fag" and Rush Limbaugh mocks him continually and he "sickens" Bill Kristol and Krauthammer and Mike Savage compares him to Mussolini and these are the loudest voices on the Right and you can't come up with a single countervailing example -- then yes, it's fair to say that the "right," in general, hates Al Gore.

Who's the one actually expressing hatred here?

Responding to moral injustices with outrage is not hatred. For another example, see "Temple, Jesus Driving the Moneychangers Out of the."

"personal jihad" "breathtaking"?

Yep. "Jihad" is a struggle borne out of a deeply felt conviction - that fits. And it has been breathtaking to see the measures taken to counter Al Gore, like people suing to try and prevent his movie from being shown in schools and right wing nutjobs claiming all the time that if Gore had been president he "would have just surrendered to terrorists."

That kind of hyperbole is pretty fucking breathtaking if you ask me.

KD writes, "Conservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming,..." Kevin, Please tell me this one just slipped by the good sense filter, 'cause it sure do sound bigoted.

It's not bigotry to describe the general proclivities of a political group. Got any counter examples of advocating the use of government to combat global warming?

If you want to discuss this further, don't bother deflecting the issue to comportment; we know we're rude when it's justified.

Posted by: trex on October 15, 2007 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13: To this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed "liberal" (e.g., Baltimore Sun, 8/9/98; Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/30/98; Dallas Morning News, 7/1/98; AP, 5/29/98). CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg even publicly chastised one of his colleagues for not tagging Brookings as "liberal" in his reporting (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 2/13/96). It's called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal

So, everyone calls Brookings liberal or centrist, except for Media Matters. Why should I believe Media Matters and disbelieve everyone else?

In fact, much of Brookings' top brass has come from Republican administrations.

How much of Brookings staff are Republicans? I'd bet that a lot more are Democrats.

Apollo 13, some liberals seem to believe that having any conservatives at all on staff makes an organization conservative. Do you believe a 50-50 split of liberals/conservatives is the ideal state of unbiasedness?

Bwahahahaha! You really are a jokester! [to claim that the New York Times is far left.]

This one seems so obvious, it's not worth debating. The Times invariable support for Democratice Presidential candidates. Their exposure of Military and Homeland Security secrets. Their overplaying of US misbehavior at Abu Graib, while underplaying Saddam's torture at Abu Graib, which was a million times worse, their continuing vicious attacks on President Bush, their failure to report the great Bush economy, their opposition to any practical wiretapping necessary for national security, their mendacious support of the black Duke lacrosse rape accuser even after it the DNA tests had made it clear that she was lying, the Times's demonizing of Dick Cheney, etc.

Apollo 13, do you have evidence that the NY Times isn't far left.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 15, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

"...the violence and irrational acts seem to intensify as his multiple insights and accomplishments grow."--PTate

Really?

Is "the violence" really intensifying? Has there been violence?

"….here's another important issue that should be discussed rationally by all that gets turned into another pissing contest by some from both sides…majarosh at 10:02 AM
Although it is members of the right and the oil-financed interests doing 'pissing' on the issue, there are always some to try to claim both sides do it. You really should examine the issue before spouting off: there is science and empirical evidence on one side, and unsubstantiated claims of bias on yours as witnessed by daveinvaca, Homer, harry, ex-lax, ab-norman, al, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Rush and hundreds of other rightwing nutjobs."--Mike

Neither Mike, nor anyone else on this post knows which "side" I'm on in this issue. I've never argued one side over another. I've never stated where I stand on the issue.

Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

I've never argued one side over another.

But over the course of a few short weeks, we have divined something thjat resembles a position on various positions, in spite of your best efforts.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on October 15, 2007 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

You'd think it would be easier and more accurate to ask rather than assume, assign or devine, nes pa?

Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Got news for you, Maja: nobody gives a fuck 'where you stand'.

Put up or shut up.

Posted by: theAmericanist on October 15, 2007 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Uhhhh...yeah...what Paul said.

And anyone who wants to give me grief for standing with Paul, well, okay...give me hell, too.

I'll be sure to notify the proper authorities the minute I give a good god-damn.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on October 15, 2007 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: So, everyone calls Brookings liberal or centrist, except for Media Matters.

Of the two sources I provided, none were from Media Matters.

Whassup with your reading comprehension, hmm?

Why should I believe Media Matters and disbelieve everyone else?

Well, as I said, I didn't cite Media Matters. But now that you've brought 'em up... Because Media Matters is thorough as a media watchdog. MM provides quotes and cites to fact-check the erroneous reporting and rightwing spin that's so pervasive in news media today.

And who is everyone else? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what you believe or who you believe/disbelieve. The fact that you support Bush, IMO, totally undermines your credibility.

How much of Brookings staff are Republicans?

Gee, why don't you contribute some facts for a change and investigate. Now run along.

I'd bet that a lot more are Democrats.

And I bet you've never heard of conservative Democrats.

...some liberals seem to believe that having any conservatives at all on staff makes an organization conservative. Do you believe a 50-50 split of liberals/conservatives is the ideal state of unbiasedness?

A so-called liberal organization would have NO staff members with conservative bias, that is, if one were to define the org as liberal. I can accept that Brookings is bipartisan to a degree, but liberal? Hell, no!

This one seems so obvious, it's not worth debating.

You described the NYTimes as "far left." You have not proven it.

The Times invariable support for Democratice Presidential candidates.

Who on the far left does the NYTimes support for president? When did NYT endorse Dennis Kucinich? And secondly, polling shows more support for Dems than for Repubs.

Their exposure of Military and Homeland Security secrets. Their overplaying of US misbehavior at Abu Graib, while underplaying Saddam's torture at Abu Graib, which was a million times worse, their continuing vicious attacks on President Bush, their failure to report the great Bush economy... [blah, blah, blah]....

First, based on the litany of examples you cited, some of which are specious claims and mere assertions on your part, I would speculate that investigative reporting by a U.S. newspaper about U.S. governmental activities equals "far left" to you.

Most folks already knew that Saddam was an evil man. That wasn't news.

But when the U.S.A. behaves similarly by torturing Abu Ghraib detainees in a horrific manner, that's big news about a nation that once commanded great respect around the world. Sometimes the truth hurts. Get over it. Hopefully, a Dem president will restore decency and honor to the Oval Office and once again garner the respect of the world.

Second, you are incredibly naive about media. Newspapers such as the NYTimes want to sell single copies and subscriptions plus attract eyeballs to sell advertising. Thus, for example in the '90s, we were deluged with Clinton-Lewinsky stories because why? Scandals sell. And, boy, Repubs have delivered up some juicy scandals... from the corruption of Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, etc., to Larry Craig and Mark Foley.

Third, the vast majority of Americans oppose the Iraq War, want our troops out, and overwhelmingly disapprove of Bush. So if a news org wants to appeal to the vast majority of its potential readers, it would appeal to those potential readers' interests.

Fourth, Bill Kristol has unflatteringly criticized Bush as has William F. Buckley (Jul. 22, 2006, CBS News interview). Does that make them far left liberals? Of course not.

Fifth, "the Bush administration has also been using intimidation and fear against journalists." Now that Bush is decidedly a lame duck with Dems back in power and the prospect of a Dem president in 2008 (i.e., a perception of less fear and intimidation against journalists), perhaps a few, and I do mean a few media lapdogs have grown sick of having been bullied and are becoming brave enough to report about the worst presidency in U.S. history.

Sixth, there was no congressional oversight when Repubs held the majority. Now there is oversight with Dems in power, and because of it, plenty of grist for the media mill.

As far as the alleged failure to report the "great Bush economy"... why market to a tiny sliver of potential readers of the wealthiest Americans among us when most of us (and thus, more potential readers) know that the Bush economy sucks?

...do you have evidence that the NY Times isn't far left.

I most certainly do.

You said so.

Ergo, it isn't true.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on October 16, 2007 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13: Most folks already knew that Saddam was an evil man. That wasn't news.

But when the U.S.A. behaves similarly by torturing Abu Ghraib detainees in a horrific manner...

No, the US did not behave in a similar manner to Saddam. American so-called "torture" at Abu Graib involved putting panties on a prisoner's head, putiing prisoners in embarassing positions, and threatening prisoners with dogs. These actions did not cause physical harm, but they were improper. The people who did these things were punished. Incidentally, the military investigation preceeded the publicity.

Saddam's torture involved eye-gouging, piercing of hands with electric drill, suspension from the ceiling, electric shock, extinguising cigarettes on prisoners, tearing out fingernails, "Falaqua" (beating the soles of the feet with a cable), beating with whips, rods and hose pipes, and lowering people into acid baths.* Saddam punished nobody for these brutal tortures; they were government policy.

Apollo 13, your incorrect impression that the US practices were similar to Saddam's may have come from far-left, anti-American media, such as the New York Times, who underplayed Saddam's misdeeds and overplayed ours.

(*Source The Smoking Gun http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jackstraw1.html )

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 16, 2007 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK

I dunno as it is exactly reassuring when somebody 'defends' torture by Americans by saying "well, Saddam Hussein was WORSE..." In fact, it's a kind of confession how far wrong we've gone.

If you weren't an asshole, ex, you'd know that.

Posted by: theAmericanist on October 16, 2007 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, theAmericanist, I didn't defend American misbhavior at Abu Graib. I said it was improper and that the perps deserved their punishment.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 16, 2007 at 7:51 AM | PERMALINK

Let me just say it one more time. Polar cities. Google the term or wiki it. It's the future, folks. Get ready.

It is amazing that the WSJ would not even print Al Gore’s name in that editorial, it just shows how scared that paper is. Scared of what? Reality.

Of course, Gore deserved that prize, as a co-laureate along with the IPCC, it is a nice combination, the PR guy and the statistics working in tandem. Bravo to the Nobel people for using their heads on this one. Nice.

One thing we need to think about, and I realize nobody is going to like what I am going to say, is this: at some point along the road we, humankind, are going to need to think about “polar cities” to house the potential survivors of global warming events, possibly by the year 2500 or so. Some people tell me sooner. I am just using this date as a modest guessimate.

What are polar cities? And why I am proposing them now? Google the term, or Wikipedia it, and you will see. So far the mainstream media has shied away from writing anything about my idea, a few letters to editors published and a few bloggers have posted items about this, but it will be a long time before the New York Times get around to printing the words “polar cities” in its august pages. I hope it’s not too long. I am waiting to be interviewed, with both pro and con quotes from climate change experts part of the story too.

I hope we never need polar cities. James Lovelock hopes we never need them (I got the idea from him, of course!) But we just might need sustainable polar retreats (SPRs) or “polar cities” Far-fetched? Global warming catatrophic events are far-fetched too. But it’s time now — NOW! — to at least start talking about, thinking about, planning, designing and even pre-building some model polar cities in the northern regions.

Mainstream media, do you read me? It’s just an idea. It’s not the end of the world!

Posted by: Danny Bloom on October 16, 2007 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

A discussion of the British court case involving "An Inconvenient Truth" is underway at RealClimate.

http://www.realclimate.org/

"Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate" (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged "errors" (note the quotation marks!) in the movie's description of the science. The judge referred to these as 'errors' in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).

There are a number of points to be brought out here. First of all, "An Inconvenient Truth" was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard. Secondly, the judge's characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore's mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren't). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how "Guidance Notes" for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion of these points in the classroom. This is something we wholehearted support - AIT is probably best used as a jumping off point for informed discussion, but it is not the final word. Indeed, the fourth IPCC report has come out in the meantime, and that has much more up-to-date and comprehensive discussions on all these points.

A number of discussions of the 9 points have already been posted (particularly at New Scientist and Michael Tobis's wiki), and it is clear that the purported 'errors' are nothing of the sort. The (unofficial) transcript of the movie should be referred to if you have any doubts about this. It is however unsurprising that the usual climate change contrarians and critics would want to exploit this confusion for perhaps non-scientific reasons."

And there's more.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 16, 2007 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

Ex: the two grafs that include "These actions did not cause physical harm...they were government policy" IS a defense of official American torture, and makes the point you were trying to refute, that the BEST you can say about it is that Saddam was worse. Doubtless unintentionally, you conflate Saddam's Black and Decker squads with the US military, and put 'em on a continuum -- different only in degree, not in kind. The proof is your huffing that you said it was "improper".

Ick.

The only thing to be said in your defense is that you're too stoooopid to notice what your words mean.

Posted by: theAmericanist on October 16, 2007 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13, your incorrect impression that the US practices were similar to Saddam's may have come from far-left, anti-American media...

No, ex-lib.

One of my sources was Donald Rumsfeld (via Editor&Publisher) who said, upon reviewing the photos and video of torture at Abu Ghraib:

"I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.
A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of "rape and murder." Rumsfeld then commented, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."
The photos were among thousands turned over by the key "whistleblower" in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking.
I read the military's report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba that also included details such as sodomizing a detainee "with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."

Maj. Gen. George Fay stated that "torture was being used."

Rummy appointed a panel chaired by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who said, "There was sadism on the night shift at Abu Ghraib..."

So no, my sources were not "far-left."

Posted by: Apollo 13 on October 16, 2007 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

ex-lib on torture at Abu Ghraib: These actions did not cause physical harm, but they were improper.

Your denial is pathological and your credibility is zero.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on October 16, 2007 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13 - if at Abu Graib there was rape, murder, sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and with a broom stick, then I was wrong to state that there was no physical harm. In that case, the misdeeds were much more serious than I stated.

However, I do not recall anyone being convicted of rape, or murder, or sodomizing with a broomstick, or sodomizing with a chemical light. Maybe I've forgotten. Can you provide cites?

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 16, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK
….I do not recall anyone being convicted of rape, or murder, or sodomizing with a broomstick, or sodomizing with a chemical light….ex-lax at 10:56 AM
Look it up. The Bush regime is still covering up the atrocities and few of the perpetuators have been punished. Why don't you stick with sliming children like Shawn Hornbeck and Graeme Frost? That's the way you pro-torture thugs get your rocks off, right Bushboy? Posted by: Mike on October 16, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

"Got news for you, Maja: nobody gives a fuck 'where you stand' Put up or shut up."
Posted by: theFLAmer

Not news to me. Over the course of a few short weeks, I have devined that the priority here, over everything else, is to slam.

"show us where ANY conservative of even minimal national stature has said anything generous about Gore for standing up against global warming."
"Okay -- so produce ANY statements of admiration for Gore's achievements on global warning from ANY recognizably conservative outlet, or for that matter, even ONE conservative elected official."
"So produce even ONE real example.
Multiple Posts by: theAmericanist

1. Monica Crowley


"...we know we're rude when it's justified." Posted by trex

"justified" The excuse given to absolve bad behavior, rationalize.


Posted by: majarosh on October 16, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Mike, thanks for the cite.

It appears that either there was a cover-up or Seymore Hersh's reports were exaggerated. I tend to doubt that there was some massive cover-up, because:

1. Hersh has been inaccurate on other occassions.

2. With all the media focus, some media sources would likely have exposed any cover-up.

3. An effective cover-up is very difficult to maintain, because so many people would have to know about it. By now, some of them would have blown the whistle.

E.g., if the cover-up came from Bush as you assert, then Bush's orders would have passed through Lt. Gen Sanchez. Sanchez recently gave a speech in which he blasted the Bush war plan and blasted many others as well, but he said nothing about any Abu Graib cover-up. I think if there had been a cover-up, Sanchez would have mentioned it in that speech.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 16, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK
The Nobel committee missed a chance to end the US occupation of Iraq….Brojo at 5:21 PM
D'uh: It's a Peace prize, not a war monger award.
…Neither Mike, nor anyone else on this post knows which "side" I'm on in this issue….majarosh at 9:47 PM
I don't care where you stand, sit or lie. Glib assertions of "both sides" when there is no equivalency don't cut it.
….I tend to doubt that there was some massive cover-up….ex-lax at 11:32 AM
In '05, a judge ordered the publication of more photos. That decision was appealed by the Bush government on the grounds that it would harm America's image [ya think, George?], then the administration simply refused to comply

“So what is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon, in an eleventh hour move, blocked from release this weekend? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: ”I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.“ They show acts ”that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane,“ he added. …Yesterday, news emerged that lawyers for the Pentagon had refused to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release dozens of unseen photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Saturday…

Posted by: Mike on October 16, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

ROFL -- Monica CROWLEY?

The one whose blog has the following take on Gore's Nobel: "Hillary's nemesis, her bitter rival in the Clinton White House, her worst nightmare for the 2008 race---has now been made untouchable by that cabal of European liberals in Sweden. He has been elevated to sainthood.... The only way to stop either disaster is for her Enforcers to get to him ... the standard-issue Clinton kneecapping will not suffice."

Maja, grow up: you've been talking out your ass, and everybody knows it. Admit it, and move on.

Posted by: theAmericanist on October 16, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Mike, the Bush Administration refused to release 87 photos and 4 videos, and we all know about their refusal. The media was all over it.

It's quite a leap to go from a public refusal to release certain photos to believe that Bush secretly ordered murderers and rapists to go unprosecuted and that his orders went all the way down the chain of command, yet there's no public evidence of this cover-up.

BTW was the Pentagon's refusal to comply that you cite the last word? I seem to remember that the Pentagon filed an appeal and won a ruling allowing them not to publish this material.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 16, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal wrote: "... far-left, anti-American media, such as the New York Times ..."

ex-liberal also wrote: "... if at Abu Graib there was rape, murder, sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and with a broom stick, then I was wrong to state that there was no physical harm. In that case, the misdeeds were much more serious than I stated."

so the propaganda-regurgitating right-wing extremist mental slave "ex-liberal" proclaims that the actions of US personnel at Abu Ghraib caused "no physical harm" -- displaying his complete and utter ignorance of what actually happened there, actions that were publicly acknowledged by no less than Donald Rumsfeld.

And from these profound depths of abject ignorance "ex-liberal" proclaims that The New York Times is "anti-American" and "far left".

Perhaps if "ex-liberal" would actually read The New York Times once in a while, he might have some slight clue about what's going on in the world.

But he prefers to live in willful ignorance, in the fantasy world made up of the propaganda that is spoon-fed to him by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Sun Myun Moon and the rest of the right-wing extremist propaganda machine.

It's sad, really.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 16, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly