« Things That Made Me Laugh | Main | Morality is Objective (And People Are Wrong) »
May 27, 2006
Jonah Goldberg is a Man of Principle
You've got to admire Jonah Goldberg's unwavering, unblinking commitment to his principles. I only wish his determination served a higher purpose than "Al Gore is a jackass":
These folks never want to engage whether Gore was in fact telling the truth or exaggerating. Do they think Gore ever really spent a whole summer as a teenager speaking fluent French about Sartre et al only to come home and get C's in French? If it's not true, isn't it really weird that he would say it? And, truth be told, if it is true, don't you think it's really weird that this is what a fifteen year-old kid wanted to do with his summer? (italics his)
If Gore didn't spend the summer in France studying existentialism, he's a liar. If he did, he's weird. Heads Jonah wins, tails Gore loses.
Jonah, it should be said, has no evidence that Gore didn't go to France for a summer, though that doesn't stop him from implying it in a nationally syndicated newspaper column (somebody call a blogger's ethics panel!). My guess is the young Al spent a number of weeks in France and, at 59, that's what dominates his memories from the Summer of 1962. So here's what we've got: Al Gore possibly misremembers particular dates from youth, George W. Bush refuses to publicly recall entire swaths of his ("When I was young and reckless..."). It's interesting to note which the press appears to prefer.
Relatedly, when I was 17, I spent a Summer at UCLA. Well, actually, it was six weeks, I just call it a summer. I am, it would seem, a liar. Worse, because I wanted to spend a high school summer taking college courses in philosophy, I'm weird. No wonder I like Al Gore. What is a wonder is that Jonah, who is constantly admonishing liberals to spend more time immersed in philosophy, doesn't. I guess some things are more important than consistency.
Update: Jonah's "evidence" for Gore's deception was that he couldn't find mention of this Summer in any of his bios of Gore. Well, as eagle-eyed reader Mike points out, he should have used Amazon's "Search Within This Book" feature (or at least thrown up one of his customary blegs). Debra Saunders' demolition project The World According to Gore (excitedly blurbed by The Weekly Standard) says:
While his father served in Congress, Gore spent most of the year living with his parents in an eight-flooor apartment on Embassy Row's elegant Fairfax Hotel. He was "finished" by extensive foreign travel. To help their boy learn Spanish, his parents sent him to Mexico one summer. They also shipped him to France and Switzerland to improve his C average in French.
As for Jonah's "And, truth be told, if it is true, don't you think it's really weird that this is what a fifteen year-old kid wanted to do with his summer?" It would seem his father sent him over there for some remedial education -- Dad's choice, not the fulfillment of young Gore's long-standing desire to study Sartre.
Just to explain why this irritates me so much, and thus why I've spent time debunking it, all that happened here was that Jonah heard Gore mention that he spent a summer studying existentialism in France, decided not to believe it, and wrote a newspaper column based on his hunch. That's it. It wasn't true, as you can see from Saunders' book, but hundreds of thousands of Angelenos -- my family included -- read it over their morning coffee nevertheless. And I doubt they're going to see a correction anytime soon. It's irresponsible journalism, and Jonah should know, and do, better.
It's missed potential, too -- I get some shit for this from you guys, but I think Jonah's a good writer, and, when he's not hacking it up, an interesting and fresh intellect. I would've loved to see a column based on this post of his. But rather than challenge his readers, he sought to do nothing but reactivate their old biases, and do so over something as small as which summer Gore spent in France. By his own admission ("there he goes again"), and for that matter, actions, he wasn't interested in the facts on the ground, just their superficially easy fit with larger narratives about Gore's untrustworthiness. It's disappointing. The LA Times -- and its unsuspecting readers, like my grandparents -- deserve better.
May 27, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/4975226
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jonah Goldberg is a Man of Principle:
Comments
I think Matt Y. finally scored a point against Jonah. It was bound to happen sooner or later, I guess.
Posted by: Matt | May 27, 2006 7:27:34 AM
Once one summer, when I was a teen, I spent a week at camp. And then later that summer I went with my family to visit my Grandmother.
But now I know that couldn't be true because Jonah told me I couldn't fit both of those two things into one summer. Think about it - two trips in one summer. How can you fit TWO things into ONE thing? Of course, you can't. It just doesn't make any sense.
Thank you God for Jonah.
Posted by: backspace | May 27, 2006 7:49:34 AM
I would guess Al was too busy toking up and tapping French ass to worry about grammar. Truth be told Jonah, who's hooker budget is only rivaled by his Cheeto budget, wouldn't get that.
Posted by: John Gillnitz | May 27, 2006 9:07:04 AM
Give it up, Ezra. All you are demonstrating by this childish rant is that you are just another wanker.
Posted by: Andrew | May 27, 2006 9:20:52 AM
Al Gore went to France? Why, that's as bad as Bill Clinton going to the Soviet Union! After all, France is in the treeeeeeeasonous Axis of Weasels who didn't like us and stuff and wouldn't join us in Iraq.
The only question: why does Al Gore Hate Freedom(tm)?
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | May 27, 2006 9:28:33 AM
On p. 3 of The World According to Gore, Debra Saunders writes that Gore's parents "shipped him to France and Switzerland to improve his C average French." I can't tell what Sauders's source is, since my access to it is Amazon's Search Inside the Book function, but if you want to pursue this further, perhaps a trip to the library is in order.
Posted by: Mike | May 27, 2006 9:37:40 AM
Jonah, it should be said, has no evidence that Gore didn't go to France for a Summer,
Except for that campaign theme where he was plowing the hilly fields on his family's farm (and we all know that planting crops on a steep plane is the way it's done).
It's interesting to note which the press appears to prefer.
Let's see: Dan Rather & 60 Minutes running fake memos & Matt Lauer asking questions about drug use versus Jonah Goldberg writing a column.......gee, can't tell which one the infamous right-wing press appears to prefer. Maybe we can get Nina Burleigh on the case.
Posted by: RW | May 27, 2006 9:38:39 AM
What I don't understand is this: why should we give a rat's ass what Al Gore did when he was 15? Doesn't jonah have a damn thing on his agenda more pressing than worrying about how Al Gore spent a few days, weeks or months 34 years ago? If not, perhaps someone could give him something else to worry about? Broder's obsessed with the Clinton marriage, Jonah's worried about Gore's trip to France - gee, can't SOMEBODY worry about America in 2006?
Posted by: Mike Clark | May 27, 2006 10:03:36 AM
Make that 44 years ago - even more reason for him to quit worrying about Gore's childhood and GET A LIFE!
Posted by: Mike Clark | May 27, 2006 10:04:47 AM
I spent the summer, well six weeks actually, learning French at a boarding school in Nice when I was fifteen too. It was cool and interesting and I met lots of worldly people and learned to speak French which I still do and rather fluently too.
The doughy pantload is the very definition of right wing vapidity. He's the perfect example of why we need affirmative action. Does anybody believe he'd be anything but a mid-level manager in ever expanding elastic topped pants if he wasn't the spawn of that Nixon abetting, Linda Tripp manipulating mother of his? If we lived in a meritocracy that's where he'd be all right!
Posted by: joker | May 27, 2006 10:05:23 AM
Hmmm, let's recap:
1) Unlike Bu**sh** and Cheney, Al Gore actually went to Vietnam.
2) But Doughy Pantload refuses to serve in George and Dick's Excellent Iraq Adventure.
3) Unlike Bu**sh** and Cheney, Al Gore studied French in France and can apparently actually speak some French, though we don't know exactly how fluently. It also seems that Gore may have studied Spanish in Spain, though again we don't know exactly how fluently he speaks the language.
4) I got Andrew Jackson right here in my pocket sayin' Doughy Pantload can't speak ANY foreign language, except possibly a very minimal amount of Hebrew which he might've had to memorize for his Bar Mitzvah when he was twelve or thirteen.
Posted by: Worst. President. Ever. | May 27, 2006 10:49:22 AM
I think the conservatives are right, and that we should bring back shunning. Let's start with Goldberg.
Posted by: mwg | May 27, 2006 11:35:24 AM
One night I spent a week in Philadelphia.
Posted by: Bruce | May 27, 2006 11:39:43 AM
"What I don't understand is this: why should we give a rat's ass what Al Gore did when he was 15?"
It's the current attack against 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Resurrect that old bullshit trope of "Gore The Serial Liar" in readers, and you don't have to worry about the fact that you can't debunk the science.. that shameful Al Gore invented global warming!
Posted by: so crates | May 27, 2006 11:55:19 AM
I'm ashamed for my alma mater UCLA after reading this rubbish:
I think Jonah's a good writer, and, when he's not hacking it up, an interesting and fresh intellect
This isn't nearly as bad as your uber-pathetic "It was the smelly hippies at school that made me a lib hawk!!!" post at Pandagaon that caused me to stop taking anything you wrote seriously, but I should have checked the destination of the link Atrios provided before clicking on it if that's the level of nonsense you write here.
Posted by: Henry Holland | May 27, 2006 12:21:33 PM
"What I don't understand is this: why should we give a rat's ass what Al Gore did when he was 15?"
Because the other day, Gore was bragging to Arianna Huffington about his summer in France at 15. In fairness to Goldberg, Gore brought this up. He told Arianna that he travelled to France when he was fifteen to study the existentialists. Goldberg doubts this story.
Posted by: Aaron | May 27, 2006 12:32:25 PM
And Arianna, who speaks a handful of languages fluently and would know a poor accent from a pitch-perfect one, reported that Gore's French had "pitch-perfect accent". She has criticized Gore in the past, and I can't imagine she'd do an about-face and lie about something to make him look good.
As a former teacher and bilingual person, I can attest to the fact that you don't get that "pitch-perfect accent" unless you spend a decent amount of time immersed in the culture and country of its speakers.
End of discussion.
Posted by: litbrit | May 27, 2006 12:44:23 PM
Goldberg can have all the personal reservations he wants about Al's veracity. The fact is he did zero research and just published "Al Gore's weird or a liar" based solely on his personal biases. If he had at least made it clear that he was going solely off his own personal dislike for Al Gore and not with any factual basis, He might have been pardonable for writing, but then why would LA Times print it?
Posted by: Geeno | May 27, 2006 12:49:41 PM
The meme that Gore is a big exaggerator is one of those pieces of misinformation which is an article of faith among those who don't read the Daily Howler.
The trouble is...Gore isn't a braggart or a liar, but he is the object of resentment and envy by those who who live with constant underachievement, while whining about how hard they work.
Posted by: Nancy Richardson | May 27, 2006 12:55:00 PM
The kind words about Jonah not withstanding, I don't think truthfulness, as opposed to "truthiness", matters to Goldberg. Did any of the retailers of the "Gore claims to have invented the Internet" or "Gore claims to have inspired the novel 'Love Story'" memes care about the facts? No, because truth and falsehood were irrelevant to the goal of validating negative perceptions of Gore.
For ideologues and partisan hacks it's always all about politics all of the time. Football being their preferred paradigm for the game of politics, it follows that winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Expecting ethics or intellectual rigor from this crowd is a mug's game.
It's interesting to note the blatant anti-intellectualism embedded in Jonah's fabulation though. Evidently he thinks that a precocious intellect is some sort of character flaw. Put him down as one of those who thinks that knocking back Budweisers with the boys is a better qualification for the Presidency than intellectual curiousity.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 27, 2006 1:10:42 PM
In fairness to Goldberg, Gore brought this up. He told Arianna that he travelled to France when he was fifteen to study the existentialists. Goldberg doubts this story.
Wow, so much dishonesty in three sentences it's hard to know where to start. This story began with a blogpost by Huffington relating a story Gore mentioned to her in a conversation. It is stretching the definition to say that Gore "brought this up". Goldberg may doubt the story, but has absolutely no evidence it isn't true. So apparently Al Gore can have a conversation with someone and then be accused of lying without a shred of evidence.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | May 27, 2006 1:12:46 PM
litbrit,
If Arianna's ear is so sophisticated, what's up with her ridiculous accented English?
You're quite right about picking up accents, though. I know a German who speaks perfect Brooklynese, and my son's High German is heavily Swiss. I'd expect Gore's French to be Cannesian if there is such a thing.
As to his continued average performance in academic French after an alleged summer of language immersion, that's entirely feasible. Gore seems reasonably intelligent, but he wasn't a top drawer student. Language fluency doesn't necessarily translate into grammatical competence, and might even work against you, especially if you learned an idiom. You'll easily be understood, but you couldn't write for Match.
My bottom line, Jonah doesn't make his case, but Al Gore is still a serial exaggerator, and IMHO, half a bubble off plumb.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 1:19:35 PM
Al Gore spent his "summer" improving his French - this is either weird or dishonest according to Jonah. Personally I loved the movie that was based on his summer, no not Love Story, but If Looks Could Kill .
Posted by: UCFjoustudent | May 27, 2006 1:28:56 PM
My bottom line, Jonah doesn't make his case, but Al Gore is still a serial exaggerator, and IMHO, half a bubble off plumb.
Excellent recitation of the media/republican talking points. Any evidence for this at all? Anything Somerby hasn't refuted hundreds of time?
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | May 27, 2006 1:50:51 PM
My bottom line, Jonah doesn't make his case, but Al Gore is still a serial exaggerator, and IMHO, half a bubble off plumb.
So now the threat level has been downgraded from "serial liar" to "serial exaggerator?" In that case, ought we not to rate the scale of exaggerations (if, in fact, that discription is accurate) by scale and potential harm? How do Gore's supposed "exaggerations" rank compared with say "We know Saddam has WMD's and we know where they are." or "Mission accomplished?" Bluntly, how many lives have Gore's alleged "exaggerations" cost?
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 27, 2006 2:01:01 PM
Col Bat Guano,
Start with his latest and greatest--An Inconvenient Truth. Talk about exaggerated guano.
W.B., whoahh Nellie. How'd you get from young master Albert at Cannes to WMD?
Here's some free advice. Nominate the guy and vote for him. There's no controlling legal authority stopping you.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 2:11:55 PM
I hear that Jonah Goldberg spent a whole summer eating donuts. Now, that is something nobody is contentious about.
Posted by: nova silverpill | May 27, 2006 2:17:32 PM
"It's missed potential, too -- I get some shit for this from you guys, but I think Jonah's a good writer, and, when he's not hacking it up, an interesting and fresh intellect."
bullshit dressed nice still reeks.
Posted by: basilbeast | May 27, 2006 2:48:31 PM
Well, one thing's certain: Al Gore said he invented the Internets!
It must be true if Trent Lott made it up!
Posted by: Happenstance | May 27, 2006 3:05:33 PM
I have a young friend, American born to Columbian parents, who is bilingual in Spanish and English. I know enough Spanish to judge that she speaks it as fluently as her mother, grandmother and two Columbian born sisters.
And she pretty consistenly makes Cs in high school Spanish.
Posted by: cailte | May 27, 2006 3:20:44 PM
What a fucking punk (why even attempt erudite analysis in the face of such douchebaggery?).
Suicide would be too good for him.
Posted by: Mr. X | May 27, 2006 3:32:15 PM
What hormone-raging 15 year-old boy who understands the promise of French babes is going to turn down an offer to go chase them?
Apparently, Jonah's the geek.
Posted by: Jimm | May 27, 2006 4:04:46 PM
Start with his latest and greatest--An Inconvenient Truth. Talk about exaggerated guano.
Sorry, but just because you have an aversion to scientific evidence doesn't make Al Gore and exaggerator. I know folks like you wish reality had a different bias, but you are just going to have to accept it.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | May 27, 2006 4:20:50 PM
Anyone who cites JG as a reference is not worthy of respect.
Period.
Posted by: Thor Likes Pizza | May 27, 2006 4:22:13 PM
Goodness, what a lot of trolling... I guess Ezra should consider it a compliment that so many are now poised to jump into his comment threads & act like asses.
Re: Gore having "brought it up," what a I basically took from Arianna's relation of the story is that Gore speaks French beautifully, and attributed it to having spent a summer (or some portion thereof) in France during his teens. I seriously doubt he said "did you notice my fluency in French?- I summered over here when I was 15 and have practiced diligently ever since." She probably heard him speaking French, complimented him on his fluency as a conversation starter, and he either volunteered that story or it was a response to a direct question. That's how normal people with triple-digit IQs converse IME, though; deducing that from an account of one of the participants very well be too complicated, and therefore frustrating, for Republicans.
Posted by: latts | May 27, 2006 4:29:34 PM
Col Bat Guano,
Your hero, comments about his new flick in Grist magazine, May 26, 2006:
"I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
So maybe he's just a serial overrepresenter?
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 4:41:58 PM
Col Bat Guano:
Make that the May 9 Grist. My bad.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 4:51:22 PM
Of course Al Gore was comapring warnings abotu what global warming can do versus soltuions to global warming. Anyone with a 6th grade reading comprehension could get that. Unfortunately that leaves out Old Dad.
So Ezra, Goldberg is bright because he can make up a shitstorm?
Posted by: Rob | May 27, 2006 4:51:49 PM
Rob,
I bow to your 6th grade reading comprehension.
Most adults, though, can see that Gore is arguing that it's ok to overrepresent for a good cause.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 5:03:13 PM
W.B., whoahh Nellie. How'd you get from young master Albert at Cannes to WMD?
If a politician's alleged status as a "serial exggerator" is so urgent a question that it justifies suggesting that he's nuts, it seems reasonable to try and place it in perspective by comparison to other examples of exaggeration on the part of politicians.
It's plain that reports of Saddam's WMD stockpiles were greatly exaggerated. As was the assertion of "Mission Accomplished." That being the case, I query again: How many lives have Gore's alleged "exaggerations" cost?
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 27, 2006 5:14:26 PM
The Doughy Pantload spent most of his summers with his head in Lucianne's underwear drawer.
Posted by: W.B. Yeast | May 27, 2006 5:26:50 PM
W.B.
I suggest you address your urgency question to Ezra--it's his post that we are responding to.
And I didn't say that Gore was nuts, although he might be. I said he was a half a bubble off plumb. I find him strange, that's all.
I see that you've come to agree that Gore is a serial exaggerator, and that most if not all politicians do it.
You're certainly justified to speculate on the relative harm done by said exaggeration, and I concur that Gore is now a fairly harmless has been. I don't agree with your WMD premise, though.
Gore shared the same opinions in the 90s and did nothing. Was he overrepresenting then? It's an open question. God knows he has a track record.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 5:28:33 PM
How do Gore's supposed "exaggerations" rank compared with say "We know Saddam has WMD's and we know where they are."Interesting that the administration that Gore was the veep in bombed the dogsnot out of Iraq in December of 1998 (four days, IIRC). I'll let you do a google search and see what the official rationale was for the military actions. Here's a hint: Clinton gave a televised address to list the reasons.
Hint #2: the initials are W, M and D.
But, don't believe me....go read the words of the president that Gore worked for in 1998 (back when it was okay to attack Baghdad).
Posted by: RW | May 27, 2006 5:31:53 PM
it's ok to overrepresent for a good cause
Heh... maybe this is common ground for the right and their "premarital sex gives you AIDS, herpes, infertility, pregnancy, makes you damaged marital goods, and sends you straight to hell, all at the same time" exaggerations. Theoretically, it's all possible, but it's a helluva lot less likely than anything Gore's presenting as a worst-case scenario. I haven't seen the movie yet (anyone who has can correct me or clarify), but it's my understanding that he is mostly making the point that if we do nothing now and our current levels of energy consumption remain consistent and technology doesn't become more effective and no one else in the rest of the world does anything either, then X will most likely happen sooner rather than later. The point isn't that Manhattan will be flooded in a given number of years, but that we have done so much damage already and are gaining so much destructive momentum that our longstanding denial will catch up with us sooner than we think.
As a similar example, a couple of months ago my not quite 60-year-old aunt had a heart attack in that uncertain, what-the-hell's-wrong-with-me way that women tend to... she's a lifelong smoker (with the beginnings of COPD), horribly anxiety-prone, not particularly active, etc., and as it turned out her arteries were narrowed, not blocked, so there's little that can be done medically to help her. The cardiologist told her "if you do not stop smoking and get some therapy, you will die, and fairly soon." Well, she has not done either, and she's still alive, but I'm not betting on her being around to enroll in Medicare in the fall of 2011 either. Dunno what's going to happen, and she probably figures that her continued existence is proving the doctors wrong, but no amount of, um, "overrepresentation" is likely to make her admit she's wrong. Even the harshest language doesn't penetrate the thicker type of skulls, unfortunately.
Posted by: latts | May 27, 2006 5:39:34 PM
Huh... I'm sure I closed that bold tag. How aggravating.
Posted by: latts | May 27, 2006 5:41:09 PM
Most adults, though, can see that Gore is arguing that it's ok to overrepresent for a good cause.
Or that he's presenting worst case scenarios in order to dramatize the seriousness of the problem. Whether or not this qualifies as exaggeration is dependent upon the factual probability of the scenarios.
Or, as any "adult" can see from the question that Gore was responding to:
There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Gore is clearly talking about whether it is better to emphasize the dangers of Global warming rather than possible solutions in order to forward the public debate. It takes a peculiar sort of mindset to translate this as 'Gore advocates exaggeration on principle'.
Can you point to where he treats something extremely unlikely as being extremely likely? Say along the lines of "Our occupation troops will be greeted with flowers and candy by a grateful populance?" If not, I'd suggest you are only seeing what you want to see.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 27, 2006 5:43:12 PM
One time, at band camp...
Posted by: Jonah Goldberg | May 27, 2006 5:44:50 PM
latts,
So we agree? Gore's a serial overrepresenter?
And that's ok because there are a lot of knuckle draggers who need to have hell scared out of them so that they'll fly right. Truth be damned.
Am I overrepresenting your position?
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 5:47:19 PM
Am I overrepresenting your position?
Yes, you are. And you haven't explained your justification for the word "serial," either.
Posted by: latts | May 27, 2006 5:50:08 PM
W.B. Reeves:
You've got a point. He's clearly addressing a propaganda strategy.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 5:52:02 PM
All:
I respectfully withdraw my last post. After a careful rereading of Gore's answer, I can't "clearly" conclude anything. Gore's answer is gibberish. It seems to support my argument, but it really makes no sense.
My apologies.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 5:54:46 PM
And I didn't say that Gore was nuts, although he might be. I said he was a half a bubble off plumb. I find him strange, that's all.
And if we are going to parse language, I never said that you said so. I said that the suggestion had been made. You want to argue that your crack was no such suggestion, fine. The curious question remains as to how you managed, nevertheless, to recognize yourself in my discription.
I see that you've come to agree that Gore is a serial exaggerator, and that most if not all politicians do it.
Evidently you do have problems with reading comprehension. Since I never used "serial exaggerator" in reference to Gore without the qualifiers "alleged", "supposed", etc., it is impossible to reasonably draw the conclusion above. Of course there is the possibility that you understood me perfectly well and choose to pretend otherwise.
So we agree? Gore's a serial overrepresenter?
And that's ok because there are a lot of knuckle draggers who need to have hell scared out of them so that they'll fly right. Truth be damned.
Am I overrepresenting your position?
I'm afraid humor is clearly not your forte'.
Given the cut and paste job you did on the Gore quote as well as your other comments I'd say you're a "serial misrepresentor" not to mention "serial inventor."
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 27, 2006 6:12:21 PM
latts,
Al Gore has baggage. Who doesn't? He's tagged as a serial exaggerator. Consequently, the press and his political foes look for opportunities to enhance this impression. The Daily Howler has done a good job of debunking some of the most popular examples, but at the end of the day, I find him guilty as charged. Take the "I took the initiative in creating the internet" example. No, he never said he invented the internet, but he exaggerated his not trivial role. I'm not too interested in the everybody does it angle, although I think that's mostly true, but it seems silly to argue that Al Gore doesn't routinely, serially exaggerate.
As I posted up thread, I don't think Jonah makes his case at all in the alleged Cannes kerfuffle, and I do think that some of the criticism is unfair, but I stand by my argument.
The most serious examples, to my mind, are Gore's environmental scare tactics starting with Earth In The Balance.
I'm conservative--shocking revelation, I know. Obviously the globe is warming. There is legitimate debate, it seems to me, as to how much, but there does seem to be growing consensus on that front. Man clearly plays a role. How much is not at all clear. The consequences of the warming are unclear, and, perhaps, unpredictable. In other words, the problem is poorly defined as are the solutions. It's no time for scare tactics. I thik Al's overrepresenting hurts environmental activism more than it helps.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 6:18:35 PM
Given Old Dad's principled recantation, I respectfully withdraw the characterizations of "serial misrepresentor" and "serial inventor."
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 27, 2006 6:20:05 PM
W.B. Reeves:
You should have told me about that straw man. Now there's hay all over with nothing to show for it.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 6:22:51 PM
"Pricipled"??? And just what sir are you suggesting?
Thanks for the chat, I've got to go.
And one last word--Al Gore is too a toady faced, tobacco hoeing cereal hyper.
And Jonah is a slightly rotund godlet.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 6:27:49 PM
Y'know, I think being a conservative really is a good gig for those who are already privileged & inclined to be lazy-- it's simply a matter of pissing & moaning, attacking & obstructing, eventually saying "well, you probably have a bit of a point, but saying so just offends [unspecified] others & hurts your cause," and finally taking a "well, sure, no one disagrees that slavery/child labor/racism/whatever was wrong, but you people just beat it to death" attitude when there's simply no way around the fact that the liberals were right all along, and that they did all the actual work to change things for the better to boot. It's an all-purpose policy of obtuseness.
Posted by: latts | May 27, 2006 6:37:36 PM
And one last word--Al Gore is too a toady faced, tobacco hoeing cereal hyper.
And Jonah is a slightly rotund godlet.
You worship at strange altars.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 27, 2006 6:38:52 PM
Jonah Schmonah.
A schmuck is a schmuck is a schmuck.
Jonah needs to ask himself why he has such difficulty accepting facts or reality. He continues to construct a freakish universe in his mind that supports all of his lies, and I wonder if he will pursue this lifestyle indefinitely?
Posted by: Hephaestion | May 27, 2006 7:21:19 PM
litbrit,
If Arianna's ear is so sophisticated, what's up with her ridiculous accented English?
I'm conservative--shocking revelation, I know. Obviously the globe is warming.
Old Dad, Arianna left Greece when she was a teenager. It is well known that second (and third and fourth) languages that are learned after the first 7-10 years of life may well be spoken fluently and with perfect grammar, but a slight (and oftentimes pronounced) accent of one's native language will usually remain. It has to do with neural pathways in the brain, specifically that part of the brain that manages speech and communication, that are still forming at a fast clip when one is a child.
That said, different people hold onto accents--or lose them, or pick up new ones--to different degrees. Some simply have a better "ear" for new inflections. Some are reinforced in their native accent by those with whom they converse at home.
As for your being a conservative who is aware that the globe is warming, perhaps you could do the rest of us a favor and inform your rightwing brethren? If it comes from a non-moonbat, they might listen. Thanks.
Posted by: litbrit | May 27, 2006 7:51:03 PM
latts:
It's a great gig.
Go chase some tail. It will do wonders for your pissy disposition.
NB: I'm commenting on your modestly nasty attitude, and not on libs, in general.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 9:03:30 PM
litbrit,
You're right. That's why it's silly to put any serious weight on Arianna's evaluation of Al's accent.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 27, 2006 9:10:04 PM
*eyeroll*
Twisting is an activity best left to taffy-pullers. I was explaining why an adult might have a strong foreign accent because you attacked Arianna's manner of speaking.
Arianna is able to evaluate Al's French because she speaks French. You don't compliment someone on his "amazing grammar" or " excellent syntax"; you compliment him on his accent. But the point that he speaks French well because he actually spent some time in France, as he stated, seems lost on you and some others who seem bent on painting him as a liar. My goodness, as Ezra noted, if you want to see real dishonesty--with grievous consequences--in action on a daily basis, look no further than the heroes you elected.
All things considered, though, haven't the Right always had a strange and inexplicable problem with those who speak foreign languages? (Kerry, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry, several million immigrants, etc.)
Posted by: litbrit | May 27, 2006 10:03:51 PM
I wonder. Do you suppose Old Dad knows more than one language? If not, how could he make an intelligent critique of the linguistic ability of anyone who does?
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 27, 2006 11:06:22 PM
Jonah Goldberg got his 30 pieces of silver from the GOP. Most of the Mainstream Media in our country are whores who will do anything for profit. The Blogosphere is the only free press we have left.
Posted by: Joe | May 28, 2006 12:02:19 AM
Clever writing, and words worth reading bear only a loose relationship to each other. And in Goldberg's case, his talent for the former has never justified the latter.
Posted by: truth4achange | May 28, 2006 12:21:31 AM
I wonder. Do you suppose Old Dad knows more than one language? If not, how could he make an intelligent critique of the linguistic ability of anyone who does?
Given Old Dad's statement:
The Daily Howler has done a good job of debunking some of the most popular examples, but at the end of the day, I find him guilty as charged.
I think it is doubtful he could make an intelligent critique of anyone or anything.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | May 28, 2006 12:27:44 AM
and that they did all the actual work to change things for the better to boot.
All that and still able to hold both hands outward, palms up, waiting for more gimme programs to boot.
Posted by: RW | May 28, 2006 12:39:09 AM
"I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
First, your command of English is marginal. An "overrepresentation" of something means "a lot" or "more than you'd expect", as in "Wow, there was an overrepresentation of brown M&Ms in this bag!"
It has nothing to do with "exaggeration" or falsehood.
Read it again. Substitute the definition of "overrepresentation": Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers:
"I believe it is appropriate to have an [excessively or disproportionately large number] of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
Note the words "FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS"
In other words, he thinks it's okay to repeat the FACTS over and over if that's what it takes to get the point across.
Consult a dictionary every once in a while. You might learn something.
Posted by: delphine | May 28, 2006 1:08:59 AM
Jonah, the "Pillsbury Pantload," has a fresh intellect?
Posted by: Brian Jackson | May 28, 2006 1:19:06 AM
These trools are right about Al Gore.
The Gore demand that airlines reinforce cokcpit doors to prevent terrorists gaining control of jet airliners was simply a case of overpresentation.
Now shut up while I read about "My Pet Goat." Oh, and help me change my britches, having shit myself silly and waited for handlers to tell me what to say.
Posted by: Mr.Murder | May 28, 2006 1:34:47 AM
Ya know that thing about overrepresentation? It just so happens that FOX had a nasty little piece of business on its reputed news channel a couple of days ago. And guess what? He said the exact same thing! How could that be?
See Mediamatters.org for the clip.
See, they overrepresent all the time -- like, Gore "invented" the Internet -- but then they rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, and voila! Bullshit is the new truth!
Posted by: Jim H | May 28, 2006 2:14:49 AM
Please explain how this assertion makes sense in your world:
"Take the "I took the initiative in creating the internet" example. No, he never said he invented the internet, but he exaggerated his not trivial role."
Both hands on the keyboard, buddy; you're all over the road!
Posted by: barfly | May 28, 2006 2:27:32 AM
That Gore demand airlines reinforce cockpit doors was, indeed, a case of overpresentation. Apology for the typo.
Posted by: Mr.Murder | May 28, 2006 2:48:38 AM
Old Dad:
You repeatedly call Gore a “serial exaggerator.” You offer four examples to support the charge:
1. “ Start with his latest and greatest--An Inconvenient Truth. Talk about exaggerated guano.”
Merely to claim that his movie is an example of exaggeration in no way demonstrates it is so. Do you care to offer any support? Here’s what you would have to do to show that Gore is exaggerating in the movie: a) you’d have to show that what he claims is fact is not (or at least that it is not as well-founded as he claims), and b) that he KNOWS it’s not. That’s a tall order, which you haven’t even begun to fill. Not only can you probably never demonstrate that Gore is not convinced of the accuracy of what he says, but others have attacked the movie, and as far as I can tell the attacks have been soundly refuted. Here’s an example: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/25/national-review-warming/
2. You imply that Gore himself admits he’s exaggerating about global warming: “Your hero, comments about his new flick in Grist magazine, May 26, 2006: ‘I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.’ Two points:
First point: [from Delphine’s excellent post] An "overrepresentation" of something means "a lot" or "more than you'd expect", as in "Wow, there was an overrepresentation of brown M&Ms in this bag!"
It has nothing to do with "exaggeration" or falsehood.
Read it again. Substitute the definition of "overrepresentation": Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers:
"I believe it is appropriate to have an [excessively or disproportionately large number] of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
Note the words "FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS"
In other words, he thinks it's okay to repeat the FACTS over and over if that's what it takes to get the point across.
Second point: You lifted the quote out of its context, which context makes it unmistakably clear what Gore is saying:
There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix? [NOTE THE QUESTION WELL: WHAT’S THE RIGHT MIX BETWEEN SCARING AND GIVING HOPE?]
Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. Over time that mix will change [!!]. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
Given the context, the meaning of “overpresentation,” and the phrases “of factual [!] presentations” and “that mix will change,” it is unmistakably clear that Gore is merely saying the scary facts should be talked about MORE than hopeful solutions at this point in time; he is clearly not saying the facts should be MISrepresented.
3. “Take the ‘I took the initiative in creating the internet’ example. No, he never said he invented the internet, but he exaggerated his not trivial role.”
Once again, the quote on which this claim is based was lifted out of context. When you consider that Gore did in fact take the initiative IN CONGRESS in turning what was then NOT the internet into the internet, and then you consider the fuller context of the quote (below), it seems clear to me that Gore was not exaggerating, but merely clumsily referring to his leadership in Congress on making the internet what it eventually came to be. Here’s Bob Somerby for the fuller context:
In the Late Edition interview, Blitzer asked Gore to explain what set him apart from Bill Bradley, his opponent for the Dem nomination. Somewhat clumsily, Gore offered a list of career accomplishments. One part of his answer drew more attention than any remark by any candidate in the entire 2000 campaign.
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet,” Gore said. “I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.” On the whole, this was the kind of chest-thumping statement which candidates routinely make on the stump. But as anyone who followed this election will know, Gore’s initial, sixteen-word comment was widely dissected for the next twenty months. Almost surely, Gore’s brief remark about the Net was the most widely-discussed statement of Campaign 2000. The spinning of this one remark drove a nasty War Against Gore—a spin campaign which almost surely decided the 2000 race.
Gore’s remark would be widely attacked. But surprise! At the time Gore made his statement, it received no attention whatever. Blitzer didn’t ask Gore to explain his remark; he showed no surprise at what Gore had said. And in its on-air promotions for the taped interview, CNN showed no sign of thinking that Gore had “made news” with his comment. Meanwhile, major papers which covered Gore’s interview completely ignored the comment. On March 10, for example, the Washington Post ran a full report about the Gore-Blitzer session. But the paper only discussed Gore’s remarks on U.S. relations with China. On March 11, the Washington Times’ Greg Pierce reviewed the interview in his “Inside Politics” column. But Pierce only mentioned what Gore had said about early campaign polling. Similarly, the AP’s dispatches about Gore’s interview completely ignored his Internet comment. And another major organ passed over Gore’s statement. On March 10, the Hotline—the widely-read, on-line digest of the day’s political news—ran extensive excerpts from the Late Edition Q-and-A’s, but omitted the Internet remark altogether. In fact, in the first two days after Gore’s appearance, no press entity remarked, in any way, on what Gore said about the Net. Gore’s comment would be critiqued, attacked, burlesqued and spun over the course of the next twenty months. But it evoked no reaction from the press—none at all—at the time Gore made it. Repeat: No one in the press said even one word about Gore’s statement at the time it was made. No one showed the slightest sign of thinking Gore’s comment was notable.
Why did Gore’s comment provoke no reaction? Perhaps because Blitzer and others knew that Gore had taken the leadership, within the Congress, in developing what we now call the Internet. Gore was explicitly discussing his achievements in Congress, and if “I took the initiative” meant “I took the leadership,” his statement was perfectly accurate. (Extemporaneous speech doesn’t always parse perfectly. Everyone in Washington knows this.) Indeed, as Gore’s remark began attracting wide scrutiny, some journalists reviewed his congressional record—and a wide array of Internet pioneers described his key role, within the Congress, in creating what we now call the Net. In the March 21 Washington Post, for example, Jason Schwartz quoted several Internet pioneers, including Vinton Cerf, the man often called “the father of the Internet.” Cerf praised Gore’s role in the Net’s development. “I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president,” he said. Meanwhile, Katie Hafner, author of a book on the Internet’s origins, penned a short piece in the New York Times, quoting experts who said that Gore “helped lift the Internet from relative obscurity and turn it into a widely accessible, commercial network.” On March 18, Gore tried to clarify his remark in an interview with USA Today. “I did take the lead in the Congress,” he told Chuck Raasch; he described his Internet work in detail. Raasch quoted Gore’s explanation—but it was mentioned in no other paper.
How well-known was Gore’s leadership role? The press corps was full of experienced scribes who knew all about his work in this area. We’ll let the Nexis archives guide us as we review this familiar old tale. According to Nexis, the Washington Post’s first reference to the Internet occurred in November 1988; a “virus” had attacked the little-known network, which connected some 50,000 computers, the Post said. But as journalists began to report on the Net, Gore’s key role in its development was clear. One month later, for example, Martin Walker wrote this in The Guardian:
WALKER (12/30/88): American computing scientists are campaigning for the creation of a “superhighway” which would revolutionise data transmission.
Legislation has already been laid before Congress by Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee, calling for government funds to help establish the new network, which scientists say they can have working within five years, at a cost of Dollars 400 million.
Nine months later, the Post reported that the Bush administration “plans to unveil tomorrow an ambitious plan to spend nearly $2 billion enhancing the nation’s technological know-how, including the creation of a high-speed data ‘superhighway’ that would link more than 1,000 research sites around the country.” This network was “comparable to an interstate highway system for electronic data,” the paper said—and it noted that “a similar plan has been proposed by Sen. Albert Gore (D-Tenn.), whose legislation also proposes creating a vast electronic library that could be accessed by users seeking federally gathered information.” Simply put, Gore’s leadership role had been widely reported—and was thoroughly understood in the press. How well known was Gore’s work in this area? Five years later, the Internet was becoming well known, and the Washingtonian’s Alison Schneider looked back on its years of development:
SCHNEIDER (12/94): Internet. There’s no escaping it. It seems like only yesterday that Al Gore was preaching the merits of the I-way to a nation that still thought the Net was something used only for catching butterflies.
Duh! Within the press corps, everyone knew that Gore was the leader, within the Congress, in creating what we now call the Net. Indeed, by the time of the 2000 election, even one of Gore’s long-standing foes was praising his work in this area. On September 1, 2000, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich addressed the American Political Science Association. His remarks were broadcast on C-SPAN:
GINGRICH: In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.
Gingrich knew what Gore had done. Indeed, Gore and Gingrich had almost been friendly rivals in these technological areas. Their leadership roles had long been clear. In 1995, for example, the New York Times’ Peter Lewis attended a national cyberspace conference, where he interviewed a group of Gingrich supporters. “A number of participants said Mr. Gingrich had effectively seized the mantel of top Government cyberspace visionary from Vice President Al Gore, who is credited with creating the phrase ‘information superhighway,’” Lewis wrote. Long before the press corps ginned up the Internet flap, Lewis’ statement reflected what everyone knew—that Gore had enjoyed a long-standing reign as the government’s King of the Net.
Had Gore misstated his role to Blitzer? This notion would be aggressively bruited throughout Campaign 2000, but you had to work very hard to tease a lie out of Gore’s statement. Gore had said this: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. Gingrich said this: Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet. It’s hard to torture a difference from that pair of statements, and a Gore biographer, the Post’s David Maraniss, seemed to complete the Rule of Three. In August 2000, Maraniss said this on CNN’s Reliable Sources: “Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet. He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the ’70s, when no other congressman gave a darn about it.” Had Gore misrepresented his leadership role? Only those determined to make him a liar would have drawn that tendentious conclusion. Unfortunately, many journalists were eager to do that—a fact which would become crystal clear.
Indeed, Gore’s remark about the Net would become a cause celebre. Completely ignored at the time it was made, it became an iconic example of an alleged character problem—Gore’s widely-flogged “problem with the truth.” For two years, Gore would be savaged as a liar—many pundits would call him “delusional”—and his Internet comment would be Exhibit A in their endless assault on his character and integrity. But look again at what three men said, and convince yourself that it really did happen. Convince yourself that, for two solid years, Gore was denounced by the press as a liar; denounced for a comment which created no interest—none at all—in the press at the time it was made:
Al Gore, 3/9/99: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
Newt Gingrich, 9/1/00: Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.
David Maraniss, 8/26/00: Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet. He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the ’70s.
Two of these men remained major pundits. One of these men stood condemned as a liar. But so it went throughout Campaign 2000 as the press corps conducted its War Against Gore. So it went as a deeply dysfunctional press corps made a joke of your White House election.
How was Gore made into a liar? Gore made his comment on March 9; after two days of silence from the press corps, the RNC swung into action. At mid-day on Thursday, March 11, a story written by Michelle Mittelstadt appeared on the AP wire. “Republicans pounce on Gore’s claim that he created the Internet,” the headline said…
4. “The most serious examples, to my mind, are Gore's environmental scare tactics starting with Earth In The Balance.” Once again, you’d have to show that the book was wrong according to the evidence Gore was privy to at the time, and also that Gore was aware of the facts at the time and yet was purposely misrepresenting them. Good luck with that. I haven’t read the book, but given your track record above, and given the fact that Gore has been studying the topic intensely for 30 years, since his college days, and considering that Bob Somerby -- probably the most meticulous, careful, and honest observer of all things Gore -- has read the book through once and re-read some parts just recently and has commented on it in-depth and yet has failed to note any apparent exaggerations (indeed, he just recently said he was impressed with the book’s deep “erudition” and has numerous times said that Gore appears to have turned out to be right about the themes in the book, the themes having reached near-consensus status among scientists and others) and considering further that so many of the allegations about Gore’s supposed exaggerations have proven to be wrong or themselves exaggerated, I’ll go out on a limb and predict that you’re wrong about this too and that Earth In The Balance contains none of the exaggerations you claim it does.
Considering all of the above, and considering that you yourself admit that Somerby has debunked other allegations about Gore exaggerating, how can justify the label “serial exaggerator” for Gore? What basis do you have left? And just to head-off any nonsense that “Gore exaggerated here and here, therefore he’s a serial exaggerator,” showing that someone exaggerated a time or two does not make him a SERIAL exaggerator.
“And I didn't say that Gore was nuts, although he might be. I said he was a half a bubble off plumb. I find him strange, that's all.” This is a bit of dishonesty. Saying someone is “half a bubble off plumb” is like saying he’s “one slice short of a loaf,” or “one beer shy of a six-pack,” etc. All such phrases are meant to question the person’s mental wholeness. And, by the way, most of the talk of Gore being somehow unstable or psychologically “off,” is based on claims that he’s delusional and a pathological liar, both of which claims have been thoroughly debunked. Just more utterly baseless Gore-bashing.
“Gore is now a fairly harmless has been.” Amazing. There’s something wrong with nearly everything you posted. In this case, it’s obvious you have some personal grudge against Gore. Why else make such an obviously false and mean-spirited remark? Because of his passionate speeches and a highly-praised and influential new movie, Gore is a staple of media coverage and blog discussions. He may actually end up having MORE of an influence on the course of events through his movie and speeches than he could have had he been a Democratic president with a Republican congress. Who knows? And, of course, there’s more and more speculation and talk about Gore running for president in ’08. To call such a person a “has-been” is not only inaccurate, but spiteful.
“He's clearly addressing a propaganda strategy.” More distortion.
“After a careful rereading of Gore's answer, I can't "clearly" conclude anything. Gore's answer is gibberish. It seems to support my argument, but it really makes no sense.” As I made abundantly clear above, this could not be further from the truth.
“Al's overrepresenting hurts environmental activism more than it helps.” You think all of the fanfare and discussion his movie has already generated has hurt more than helped? Now who’s delusional?
“And one last word--Al Gore is too a toady faced, tobacco hoeing cereal hyper.” That's all you have left.
Regarding Arianna Huffington’s accent in and her ability to judge someone’s French: your “logic” is faulty. Simply because she has an accent in one language does not mean that she has an accent in another. She learned English as a teenager. For all you know, she might have learned French earlier and have no accent in it whatsoever. What a fool.
Posted by: Mike Laut | May 28, 2006 4:00:46 AM
Hey Ezra-babe,
"And I doubt they're going to see a correction anytime soon. It's irresponsible journalism, and Jonah should know, and do, better."
You know damn well Jonah -knows- better. He simply is a shill for the 'powers' and purposefully misleads. Much as you do.
and, "You've got to admire Jonah Goldberg's unwavering, unblinking commitment to his principles. "
What principles? self-aggrandizement? Hypocrisy? Propaganda? Neocon bullshit? You guys are simply 'peas-in-a-pod'. Useless bags of mostly water.
You, 'Ezra' really are much ado about zip. And a 'dis-assembler' to boot.
Sorry I wasted my time this morning reading your drivel. Won't make the mistake again.
dr rw
clin psy
Posted by: dr.prayer | May 28, 2006 8:11:57 AM
Heh... looks like I hit a nerve with Old Dad & RW, at least. And the sad thing is that the point was related to the only really helpful thing that genuine conservatism does: retard progress somewhat, when things are moving a bit too fast & a bit of judicious braking is in order (not that the current movement has anything to do with rational deliberation, of course).
Posted by: latts | May 28, 2006 9:36:32 AM
jonah goldberg is an ass and ezra klein is an asslicker
Posted by: barry | May 28, 2006 9:41:40 AM
Nahhh, Jonah Goldberg is simply the Pauly Shore of Political Punditry.
Posted by: lost_nacf_gop | May 28, 2006 10:18:31 AM
RE: The Daily Howler.
Much as I like Al Gore, it's nice for him that his old college roommate Bob Somerby is a semi-journalist that some folks take seriously. When it comes to Gore, better get your unbiased "facts" somewhere else; like maybe from Tommy Lee Jones.
SAT question #1012
George Bush: Fox News
a) Al Gore: Bob Somerby
Only answer needed.
Posted by: mike | May 28, 2006 10:22:04 AM
It's missed potential, too -- I get some shit for this from you guys, but I think Jonah's a good writer, and, when he's not hacking it up, an interesting and fresh intellect. I would've loved to see a column based on this post of his.
If that link is your idea of his good writing (I haven't read much of his),then I will continue to not waste my time reading his stuff.
I would like to see a real debate of actual liberal -vs- actual conservative on the moral benifits of each, but even if you managed that, you would need to find an actual reality they could agree on. For starters they would have to agree on who was stealing what from who, and that alone would make the Middle East negotiations look simple.
Posted by: FreeDem | May 28, 2006 10:47:47 AM
Jonah would not be doing anything other than asking "Do you want fries with that?" were it not for his sleazebag of a mother and the "Mainstream" media's desire for "balance" -- ie. giving a platform to neo-fascist propagandists and firing anyone left of David Broder.
As for Doughy Pantload's writing ability I'm surprised at you, Ezra. He recalls nothing so much as Truman Capote's delicious ant-Kerouac snark "That's not writng, that's typing."
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 28, 2006 11:30:07 AM
What hormone-raging 15 year-old boy who understands the promise of French babes is going to turn down an offer to go chase them?
Apparently, Jonah's the geek.
Not only a geek. A jealous geek.
Posted by: Miro | May 28, 2006 11:48:28 AM
Mike, RE: The Daily Howler.
Your "reasoning" is what's called an ad hominem logical fallacy: it's directed at the person rather than the argument. To show that Somerby is unreliable or misleading you would have to actually point out flaws in his arguments, not just claim that he likes Gore and therefore can't be trusted to discuss him accurately. Just because someone is a fan of someone else's doesn't mean he can't get his facts straight when discussing that person. Somerby, while obviously a fan of Gore's, is the most reliable, competent, scrupulous, and honest observer of whatever he directs his attention to that I know of. I've tuned into many different info. sources and commentators at various times since 9/11, and I've read Somerby every day for about two years now. No one comes close. To compare what Somerby does with Gore to what Fox News does with Bush is a joke, and shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. There was a study done, I think in 2004, that showed that people who watched Fox were way more likely to have false beliefs about a number of different things pertaining to the war in Iraq, Bush, and other political topics. If you're at all familiar with Somerby's work, do you honestly think his regular readers would be similarly misinformed about the topics he discusses? Impossible.
Posted by: Mike Laut | May 28, 2006 12:03:25 PM
A tip of the hat to Mike Laut for thoroughly taking Old Dad to the woodshed. Rethugliscum have been pretty consistent when it comes to being clueless liars. It is only the ratio of these attributes that seem to vary. The only Jonah Goldberg worth reading is in the shorter summaries found at Busy, Busy, Busy. The man's a hack.
Posted by: LanceThruster | May 28, 2006 1:00:08 PM
I got B's in French, and I spoke it better than anyone in all of m my classes. Some people who got A's couldn't order a croissant and cup of coffee. What's Goldberg's point, that A's equal fluency and C's don't?
As a language professor, I can assure Mr. Goldberg there is little correlation between grades and proficiency.
As for his assertion that Gore did not read Satre at 15, why does anyone care what a man who road his mother's skirttails to notoriety and whose career is based on gossip-mongering thinks?
Posted by: unpoetaloco | May 28, 2006 1:36:32 PM
Mike, that was a great job of forensics. Keep it up but don't let sad cases like Old Dad eat up too much of your time and energy. This is a guy who doesn't understand the meaning of the words he uses anymore than he understands the meaning of the words he reads.
First he claims to have the verbal smoking gun from Gore's own mouth. Then he admits he got it wrong. Then he claims that it's Gore who's incoherent. He misreads my argument and when corrected, tries to excuse himself by claiming I raised a "straw man". Normally if someone misused this term so egregiously I'd assume they hadn't actually read its definition. Given Old Dad's record of incomprehension here, I can't be sure.
As I suggested earlier, this is a guy who only sees what he wants to see.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 28, 2006 1:40:41 PM
Are any sane adults really going to judge some other adult's film about a serious climate problem based on what one thing the filmmaker said, in an unrelated conversation, about what they did when they were 15 years old?
Really?
I guess if the summer in question was spent murdering bums and boiling down their body parts to make soap or something, sure. But going to France and learning to plow on the family farm isn't even close to controversial.
And RW, some crops are grown on hillsides for good drainage or because hills might be most or all of the land you have on your farm. Nobody ever said the hill was a "steep plane".
Just so you know, it's a tough job to plow on an incline because nowadays we plow along the topo lines to reduce erosion. If you don't watch it you can roll the plow and tractor right over.
Posted by: JillK. | May 28, 2006 2:59:29 PM
JillK, the former veep said to David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register (about Gore's father): "He taught me how to plow a steep hillside with a team of mules."
From the DailyHowler, a Gore supporter/defender: "Bob Zelnick, whose bio appeared in the spring of 1999, made the farm chores the central metaphor of Gore's life, closing his book with a final image of Gore plowing the farm's "dangerous hillsides.""
Not only "steep", but "dangerous". And I think this comes into play because the Gore '00 campaign was pushing this "he worked hard as a yute while Senator Bradley was playing basketball" angle during the primaries.....but now, he was in France. Perhaps he's confusing some of the dangerously steep hillsides of Paris?
Posted by: RW | May 28, 2006 4:05:55 PM
Not only "steep", but "dangerous". And I think this comes into play because the Gore '00 campaign was pushing this "he worked hard as a yute while Senator Bradley was playing basketball" angle during the primaries.....but now, he was in France. Perhaps he's confusing some of the dangerously steep hillsides of Paris?
Posted by: RW | May 28, 2006 1:05:55
This is a beautiful troll shit. Smelly, a perfect spiral, freshly vomited from the odious gob of its troll-progenitor. A ten out of ten on the troll shit scale. One of the best things about the finest troll shit is that it is absurd on its face, which of course this is. Magnificent. Applause. How sad the shriveled little life of the spawner will never equal the excellence of its excrement.
Posted by: Max Renn | May 28, 2006 6:13:07 PM
RW,
Yep, you can plow steep hillsides with mules (or horses). And just one of the dangers there is not rolling the tractor, but the mules losing it and bucking out of the traces, tangling and hurting you (in fact, that's that danger in the stalls, too! Oh, and in the yard, on the road on the way to the field and on the way home. Mules can be easily spooked.).
If Al was plowing along the topo lines with mules, that is actually quite admirable since it's harder than using a tractor. Animals don't really understand plowing along the topo line, so you have to direct them every inch of the way. That process is exhausting.
If he was just plowing the old way (up the hill and down the hill), controlling the plow on the way down is very difficult and even more dangerous. For example, you have to pull back and down on the plow all the way down. Just one of the dangers with that is that if you slip and get tangled in the reins, you and the plow will get bounced down the hill by suddenly-freed mules. Plows are generally large, sharp, heavy metal objects, so that situation is just not safe no matter what you think.
And what does any of this have to do with Al's work on global warming and the film "An Inconvenient Truth"? Are you going to judge this comment by the fact that I have also worked on a farm and tell people I spent a summer in Germany when I was fifteen (coincidentally enough), even though I was actually home by August 15th? Or do I get a pass because I got straight A's in German afterward? Or is that fact immaterial since I got straight A's in German before I went? Or do I get a pass because my family wasn't wealthy and the farm work I did was a necessity and the trip to Germany something I earned by winning an academic contest? But if being born to a wealthy family is a consideration, why don't we scrutinize what George W. Bush says more carefully? Especially since when he lies, people die.
You see how we can just go on and on and on with the off-topic 'facts'? And we get further and further away from the point, which is that the off-the-point smears in Jonah's articles will be read mostly uncritically by hundreds of thousands of people -- and corrections will NOT be read by many. Media bias, especially media bias which obscures important messages, is dangerous to all of us. Not as dangerous as plowing a steep hillside with a team of mules, but dangerous.
Posted by: JillK. | May 28, 2006 6:23:49 PM
I confess to not knowing much about JG, nor all that much about Gore. But frankly, I find the general thrust of the discussion here to be somewhat disappointing.
I mean, isn't it pretty simple? If the Huffington quote is accurate, then the remark of Gore's is misleading. And to my way of thinking and understanding of standard English, that fairly qualifies as "an exaggeration". I mean, he can't have forgotten that he only spent a week and not "the summer" in France when 15, can he? And wherever the lower limits of "the summer" might might lie, they're not fullfilled by the passage of a week. Hell, it's gotta take at least a day to get to Cannes, and a day back (in standard English usage, whatever "a day" means).
Uhn uhn.
I'm simply talking about standard English usage, here. And I find it hard to imagine that my usage of English is all that off-the-wall, tho for the posts on this thread you might (and may well) think it was.
I mean, for me, I meet some guy and in the course of the conversation he mentions that he spent the summer in France when it turns out it was only a week, well, that's "an odd thing" for him to have said, to put it delicately. I'm not saying that that would necessarily stop me from having him do my bookkeeping, or necessarily stop me from voting for him for President, but it would not simply pass by . . .
If a friend of mine had told me years ago that she spent a summer in France, and I learn that, well, actually it was simply a week, well, I think I'd say to her something like "Whoa, Sue, didn't you tell me you'd spent *the summer* there?"
So, I'm disappointed. I'll get over it. But I suggest to y'all that if you can't see that such a remark might be odd, or indeed troubling to some folks, then I suggest you think things through again.
I mean, I've got no axe to grind re: Gore or Goldberg, nor any apologies to make for either. I'm no conservative and in fact I voted for the VEEP and probably would again, if (God forbid) he were nominated.
(I say "God forbid" because I don't think he's electable, not because I think he's horrid, by the bye)
And if such remarks "can seem odd" to one who's never cast a Republican vote (so far as I can recall, at least), just imagine how the right-of-center folks might take it.
(It really is an odd thing to have said, the more I think about it; and while speculation on how he came to say it ~ how it came up in the conversation ~ no doubt is, well, speculation, in re-reading the Huffington article, I can easily imagine that the nature of the exaggeration is even greater than that which has been reported. That is, can't you see Adrianna, having heard AG say something in French, say "Oh Al, what a marvelous French accent you have !" To which Al responds, as reported. This scenario is consistent with the reporting, and logically sets up how AG came to mention his having been to Canne before. Doesn't make it so, of course, but if that's how it went down, then the exaggeration is all-the-more pronounced. (Or so it seems to me))
- Regards
Posted by: DGF | May 28, 2006 6:34:36 PM
This is a satire site right?
Regardless, please do nominate Mr. Gore in '08.
Posted by: Old Dad | May 28, 2006 6:51:12 PM
.
Posted by: DGF | May 28, 2006 7:02:22 PM
That's actually pretty funny, Old Man/Old Dad. Especially for a conservative.
Heck, you're not half as bad as you've been made out to be.
-- Regards
Posted by: DGF | May 28, 2006 7:13:37 PM
Except for that campaign theme where he was plowing the hilly fields on his family's farm (and we all know that planting crops on a steep plane is the way it's done).
Too late RW. JillK easily demonstrated that you didn't know what you were talking about when you posted the above. It's best not to make rash generalizations on topics, such as farming, which you know nothing about.
I was born when my own state was primarily agricultural and there was nothing unusual about seeing plowed hillsides of varying degrees of steepness. Certainly plowing such was a far more risky affair than plowing a flatland field, regardless of whether you used a tractor or a plow.
That you don't so much as acknowlege her correction makes it pretty plain that your arguments proceed from your conclusions rather than your conclusions proceeding from your arguments.
Since your arguments are purely provisional and valued only as props for the meme you wish to forward, it hardly seems worthwhile to engage them. If you don't take your own arguments seriously, why should anyone do so?
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 28, 2006 7:23:09 PM
I mean, for me, I meet some guy and in the course of the conversation he mentions that he spent the summer in France when it turns out it was only a week, well, that's "an odd thing" for him to have said, to put it delicately. I'm not saying that that would necessarily stop me from having him do my bookkeeping, or necessarily stop me from voting for him for President, but it would not simply pass by . . .
Glad you have your finely tuned priorities in shape there. How do you know it was a week? Is four weeks enough for it to be "a summer"? Once again, this is a trivial matter that has NO BEARING on his fitness for office or his credentials as an environmental spokesman. People who worry about details like this should not be allowed to vote.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | May 28, 2006 7:47:10 PM
--Col Bat Guano
How do you know it was a week?
(1) My bad. It was a week, but here's the cite
(2) Yeah, I think 4 weeks could fairly qualify as "the summer" in many/most contexts; maybe even three, depending on the context.
(3) I disagree that it's a trivial matter in all senses, tho agree that it is trivial in others. I didn't mean to suggest that I'd break up a friendship over something like it, or that in and of itself it would affect my voting patterns, etc., and in fact I expressly made the last point in my earlier post.
(4) I'm not sure what you're referring to with respect to "my finally tuned priorities", but if the response isn't otherwise contained in this post, I'll respond if you'd be more specific.
(5) Re: voter (dis-)qualifications even remotely along the lines you suggest, I'm not in favor of them.
(6) Re: the weight which a reasonable person "should" accord one such exaggeration (versus, e.g. a perceived pattern), that's hard to say - probably not too much. And perhaps somewhat more in the political context, than in others (issues of "character" and all). In the political realm, for example, I guess you evaluate people by the sum of your perceptions of them, against whatever moral and political code you've come to develop, your biases, the political situation and choices which present themselves at the time... It's kinda complicated, huh ?
(7) Again, my apologies for somewhat conflating this thread with that of site referenced above. My point was that many folks seem not to acknowledge that statements such as the one in question (and its divergence from "objective reality") can legitimately be seen as troubling to reasonable people.
-- Regards
Posted by: DGF | May 28, 2006 9:24:52 PM
Interesting stuff and some really good posts. Please pardon me for being off topic here - but has anyone ever collected on Garry Trudeau's offer of ten grand if they served with then ANG Lt. G.W. Bush in Alabama?
Posted by: taters | May 28, 2006 9:49:01 PM
Yep, you can plow steep hillsides with mules (or horses).Sure you can. You "can" be honorably discharged from the Texas National Guard, as well. Funny, few accept that plausible ideal (which is backed up by every known gov't & military piece of paperwork, much like Kerry's medals). Then again, Charlie Sheen and the "Loose change" folks think that the US "could" have staged 9/11. Moving from a definite fact - such as "no one said "steep"" - to the "whatever is possible" is quite the climb down, IMO. Duly noted. As are the rest of your well-stated points. I don't think Gore is a bad guy (I grew up in N. GA, back when he was a center-right congressman & I watched a lot of his campaign ads on Chattanooga television stations) or a serial liar but neither is Jonah Goldberg. They view things thru different prisms, much like it appears you & I do. Gore may have plowed the steep hills that you didn't think he claimed. He may have done the hard work that his campaign claimed in '00 when running against Bradley on top of going to France (in between the hard work, one supposes) and learning french. Entirely plausible. Or, it may be along the lines of his mom singing the "union label" song and something that his memory isn't all that good about & needs to be chalked up to a simple mistake or the all-too-common necessary "joke".
I dunno. My guess is "simple mistake" on the years and will go with that. BTW, methinks you overestimate Goldberg's audience, especially when compared against the larger audience for Gore's environmental claims (which have virtually no challenge from the mainstream
media, meaning networks & major print).
It was a pleasure reading your comments, though.
Especially since when he lies, people die.Which is doubly illustrated by the fact that not one person had the guts to even acknowledge the instance of the Clinton/Gore admin bombing the dogsnot out of Baghdad in 1998 (for, you know, wmd's), back when it was cool. It's quite interesting at the number of people who were quite content with military action against Iraq in 1998 because of WMDs but who did an about face when the occupant in the WH changed. Those of us who supported the actions, no matter who the CiC was, are quite content with the status of "intellectually consistent".
The "war for lies, people died" thing ought to go well for the Clinton/Obama ticket in '08, though, since she backed the incursion and funding throughout. Last I checked, still does. We'll see how that works if Gore runs against her, although he may not even run.
Something tells me that the moment she gets the nom, the Kerry campaign of "vets first" and the current anti-war mantra will fall to the wayside, but that's just a guess.
W.B., latts & Max,
Ad hominem attacks from the comfort, anonymity & security of your keyboards impress no one and grant you little credibility and differentiate you from the nominal atriette in virtually no way whatsoever. Might as well type that I'm a martian, or better yet save yourself the effort....I'll never read another thing you type as you've disqualified yourselves from being readable. Have a nice day, but you don't warrant an audience.
Posted by: RW | May 28, 2006 10:26:20 PM
Oh, btw (for Jill), I grew up helping on my grandfather's farm, and even back then - in the 70s - we knew that planting crops on steep hills was a recipe for disaster should something as uncommon as the southern afternoon thundershower (which only occurs every 24 hours or so) washes away the hard work. Doesn't have to be flat, but planting on steep planes is, well, ignorant.
Some folks who have no other choice, such as the families of millionaire Senators who obviously cannot afford better land, are given a pass, though. :)
Jokes aside, Gore's farming or lack thereof is of little consequence in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by: RW | May 28, 2006 10:30:16 PM
RW, it's nice that you've been spending the weekend with a thesaurus, but no one has been able to legitimately contradict my assertion that conservatives have to be dragged kicking and screaming into any sort of actual progress, and that many then pretend that they agreed all along after having finally lost the moral battle. It's the nature of the breed, and indeed, its primary function is to resist anything that reshapes the culture to blur or eliminate class or racial distinctions. Any "vision" outlined by conservatives, at least in my lifetime, has basically been geared to either a) provide additional lining for the pockets of the wealthy (or, as I like to mockingly call them, super-citizens), or b) kick the snot out of some already relatively weak group, whether foreign or domestic.
Hey, it's not my fault that you subscribe to a deliberately backwards governing philosophy, but as the saying goes, don't try to piss on my leg & tell me it's raining.
Posted by: latts | May 28, 2006 10:59:14 PM
Both my grandfathers farmed, and hillier areas (nothing terribly steep, but we were at least on the less flat side of the state) were indeed used for some crops, as long as the slopes were terraced and the crops in question had good root systems & needed adequate drainage. And Carthage, TN is actually near the Cumberland River but off the foothills of the Cumberland Plateau, IIRC from the last time I was over there, which means that while the hills probably aren't terribly steep, they certainly exist. The Gores also originally grew tobacco, which some of you may want to recall is a huge crop in North Carolina & Kentucky, two not-exactly-flat states.
Posted by: latts | May 28, 2006 11:06:57 PM
Ad hominem attacks from the comfort, anonymity & security of your keyboards impress no one and grant you little credibility and differentiate you from the nominal atriette in virtually no way whatsoever.Might as well type that I'm a martian, or better yet save yourself the effort....I'll never read another thing you type as you've disqualified yourselves from being readable. Have a nice day, but you don't warrant an audience.
This is pretty humorous considering that there is nothing anomymous about my sig, unlike Mr."RW". More so since I made no "ad hominem attack."I limited myself entirely to Mr. RW's statements and conduct on this thread. Hardly surprising since those are the only things available for analysis. I don't know enough about RW to make an "argument against the man." Hell, I'm not even certain that Mr. RW isn't actually Ms. RW. I can say that RW doesn't trouble much over the meaning of the words that trip so lightly off his tongue. I don't doubt that he doesn't find me "readable." I'll bear up though.
Oh, btw (for Jill), I grew up helping on my grandfather's farm, and even back then - in the 70s - we knew that planting crops on steep hills was a recipe for disaster should something as uncommon as the southern afternoon thundershower (which only occurs every 24 hours or so) washes away the hard work. Doesn't have to be flat, but planting on steep planes is, well, ignorant.
So now Gore isn't making it up, he's just ignorant. Notice how the argument continues to metamorphize while the conclusion remains static. Point out that an assumption is misplaced and it has no effect on the opinion it's supposed to be supporting. RW just roots around for another negative slant to spin off. Gore remains a "bad guy" even as the arguments used to prove him such are successively debunked.
BTW, I grew up in North Georgia in the late fifties, sixties and plowed hillsides were a common sight. I suppose we were all pretty "ignorant" back then.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 29, 2006 10:28:23 AM
Thanks, W.B.
I couldn't have put it better myself. I did laugh a lot at the "ad hominum attacks" line of RW's though. What a hoot!
I do want to bring the point back to where it belongs - not on plowing on steep hillsides, but on Jonah Goldberg's attempts to trash Gore's very valid points about global warming in the film "An Inconvenient Truth".
Sadly, that kind of crap does influence people's views, especially when presented without any countering in a major market newspaper such as the L.A. Times. Jonah ought to be ashamed of himself for being such a hack! Oh, and RW, too!
Posted by: JillK. | May 29, 2006 12:40:59 PM
Somewhere in a Florida schoolroom is a chair.This chair is stained with the shit of a coward.The cowards name is george bush.
sixteen tons | 05.28.06 - 5:02 pm |
We are unaware of any reason to believe he was frightened or surprised.
cae et iurius | 05.28.06 - 5:03 pm |
Posted by: Mr.Murder | May 29, 2006 3:21:27 PM
We are unaware of any reason to believe he was frightened or surprised.
cae et iurius
Then how are "we" explaining his frozen demeanor even after having been told by Card that "America is under attack?" How do "we" explain his fleeing in a big airplane to go hide in fucking Nebraska?
Chocolate Proton - Hussyless |
Posted by: Mr.Murder | May 29, 2006 3:25:25 PM
How do "we" explain his fleeing in a big airplane to go hide in fucking Nebraska?
He was obviously wanting to plough some fields, in lieu of clearing brush.
Posted by: nick s | May 30, 2006 3:31:12 AM
Too bad President Bush did not spend a summer in France.
Jonah still talks about the color of the shirts Al Gore wore, never about what is inside and never about the empty suit of W. It shows after almost 6 years of Bush Goldberg has not learned a thing. Where oh where is his intellect???
Posted by: lysistrata | May 30, 2006 9:37:33 AM
DGF said, "(1) My bad. It was a week, but here's the cite
(2) Yeah, I think 4 weeks could fairly qualify as "the summer" in many/most contexts; maybe even three, depending on the context."
Apart from the inanity of this quible over what qualifies as spending "the summer" abroad - did anyone consider the possibility that Gore spent some time in France before/after the little academic existentialism camp?
Do any sources contend that Gore arrived in Cannes on a flight in 1962, hailed a taxi, and went directly to the University, registered for his week-long program, and left immediately after the last day of classes?
I think it's rather unlikely. In fact, I think it's far more likely that, with his family's means and connections, he could have travelled around for a number of days/weeks/even a month(!) about which none of us know jack shit and about which, therefore, you Gore retractors ought to shut the fuck up.
Posted by: the neoskeptic | May 30, 2006 11:14:39 AM
I clearly meant "you Gore detractors."
Posted by: the neoskeptic | May 30, 2006 11:25:19 AM
Oh, I love it so, the 'insert Democratic name here'- bashers, all wrapped up in their serious "discussions" manage to be so very, effortlessly, unintentinally funny. Yeah, we know you're smart! (wink, wink) Ya got it all figgered out, dontcha?
BTW, great take down Mike Laut, it was a pleasure to read.
Posted by: Bushtit | May 30, 2006 4:21:39 PM
Wow. First plowing on hillsides can't be done, then it isn't done, then it's ignorant to do it. Guess all those farmers in Western Kansas are ignorant. And the ones in Georgia. Or North Carolina. Or Tennessee. Or Kentucky. Or---Well, we get the idea.
I think I may have figured out some of the disbelief about a well-to-do kid farming. It's similar to what happened to a very rich acquaintance of mine. Her family was worth hundreds of millions, but. she went to public school, and had to work for her spending money. No credit cards of her own.They didn't "give" her a car, they made her take out a loan on their old Mercedes! Not even an allowance, after she was 16; she had to work at the mall, just like I did. Her parents simply expected her to learn how to be self-sufficient.
I remember that some of the other "elite" girls I knew at school laughed at that girl behind her back because her parents made her work. The ordinary kids thought it was plain weird for someone with a family that rich having to work--if they believed it at all when they heard she was. Maybe the reason we used to take our lunch breaks together was because I didn't laugh at her or bug her about why a rich girl like her was working.
Maybe this is the same dynamic at work with Gore. Bushbots find it odd when rich people expect their children to understand the value of work and not taking anything for granted. It doesn't fit their preconceived notions of how rich people raise their children.
Posted by: LJA | May 30, 2006 6:45:12 PM
Has anyone pointed out that Al Gore wrote an article for the New Yorker in 1998 about a French existentialist? Obviously the week he spent in France made a lasting impression on him.
Posted by: Caitlin | May 31, 2006 6:58:25 PM
I have said it before in other places and i will say it here, but Jonah Goldberg is proof that if that is how she was gonna use it than neither God nor the randomness of the universe and nature in general should have ever given Lucianne Goldberg a uterus
Posted by: the crapture | Jun 1, 2006 1:15:40 PM
Fucking putz. Calling Jonah Goldberg a man of principle is just the same as calling a pile of shit a source of energy. Just STFU already, I would like to beat every one of you neocon chickenhawk cocksuckers with a tire iron just to make myself feel better for a little while.
Goldberg any you are two of the most worthless pussbag pricks I'm forced to hear whine on an almost constant basis, shit on a stick it's hard to find a spot you wont go to try to smear someone.
Posted by: Bob | Jun 1, 2006 3:14:53 PM
Al Gore is Great American. His wisdom is on par with our Founding Fathers. Thank God for Al Gore.
Posted by: beaumont | Jun 1, 2006 3:32:49 PM
"I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
For all you English-speaking folks out there, it seems to me that that sentence basically says that you should overwhelm the audience with FACTUAL information. More facts doesn't make it an exageration or a lie - it just makes it lots of facts. Enough to overwhelm the audience with truth - but some of you folks wouldn't care too much for that, would ya?
To quote Andre - "I don't think that sentence means what you think it means..."
Posted by: mcthfg | Jun 1, 2006 6:58:24 PM
Excellent.
You'll get work, Klein. You're a fresh intellect.
Yeah, you'll get work.
Posted by: Lettuce | Jun 1, 2006 10:09:17 PM
Old Dad,
You're going to have to do better than this:
"Most adults, though, can see that Gore is arguing that it's ok to overrepresent for a good cause."
The definition of "overrepresented" in Dictionary.com:
"Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers: “Some groups, and most notably some races, may be overrepresented and others may be underrepresented” (Scientific American)."
Freely translated to words you can understand, that means he used a lot of examples to make his point. It does NOT mean that those examples are exaggerated or false in any way.
You seem to be confusing overrepresentation, which Gore readily acknowledges, with misrepresentation, which you are doing here.
Posted by: creeper | Jun 2, 2006 10:05:24 AM
wow...I can't believe people see fit to write so much useless blather about something so intensely insignificant...go outside, folks.
Posted by: Cubehead | Jun 21, 2006 2:49:56 AM
I agree with cubehead. Sorry all.
Posted by: spanish course | Jul 24, 2007 6:22:59 AM
