Media perpetuate myth that Gore claimed to have "invented" Internet
In recent days, major newspapers and media personalities have revived the myth that, during his presidential run, former Vice President Al Gore claimed he "invented" the Internet. Although these media outlets persist in repeating or alluding to it, this falsehood has long since been debunked. Gore did not say he "invented" the Internet. In the March 9, 1999, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that gave rise to the myth, Gore actually said: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
In the past year alone, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press have all published columns, editorials, or articles that repeat or perpetuate the myth that Gore said he invented the Internet, ignoring their own reporting to the contrary:
- On January 12, Washington Post columnist Al Kamen wrote: "We all know
that Al Gore invented the
Internet." Just one day earlier, Washington
Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote:
"The term [prebuttal -- which Milbank defined as "the act of
rebutting an opponent's speech before the speech is
delivered"], like the Internet, was apparently invented by Vice
President Al Gore." By contrast, Richard Morin and Claudia Deane reported
in an article in the August 1, 2004, issue of The Washington Post Magazine:
"For the record, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet,
rather that he 'took the initiative in creating the Internet'
while in Congress."
More recently, in an "Innovators Quiz" on June 29, 2006, the Post asked: "Who is most closely associated" with the Internet -- Vinton G. Cerf, Robert Kahn, or Al Gore? In the Answers section, the Post wrote: "Former vice president Al Gore gets a lot of flak for supposedly claiming to have 'invented' the Internet; actually, he said he took [the] initiative in creating the Internet, and in fact he did introduce legislation in Congress that helped spur its creation." - In a January 7 op-ed (subscription required) for The New York Times, conservative commentator Ben Stein described Gore as "none other than the founder of the Internet himself." About a year before, on February 6, 2006, the Times' Stuart Elliot had thanked (subscription required) Gore "for inventing the Internet." However, on March 21, 1999, soon after Gore made his original comment, the Times accurately reported: "[Gore] said in an interview with CNN that while a member of Congress, 'I took the initiative in creating the Internet.' "
- In a December 26 article, AP entertainment writer Jake Coyle wrote: "Here are a few of the loose ends and oddities left over from a year of clicking around on Al Gore's Internet." But on August 31, 2000, the AP had reported that "[t]he vice president has often joked that his biggest mistake in this campaign was his March 1999 comment on CNN: 'During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.' Gore has since said he meant only that he took the lead in laying down the policy that helped develop the vast computer network."
- In an April 27, 2006, editorial, the Los Angeles Times wrote: "The goal [of the Information Policy Action Committee] is to give lawmakers, all of whom were born long before erstwhile colleague Al Gore even dreamed of inventing the Internet, a taste of unbridled technological innovation." But on September 20, 2000, the Los Angeles Times had reported that "Gore did not say he was the Internet's inventor but in 1999 he did say, 'During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.' "
A number of television personalities have also made similar comments in the past year.
On the June 15, 2006, edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson, host Tucker Carlson said he "did know" Gore invented the Internet:
MAX KELLERMAN (HBO Boxing commentator): Don't you know Al Gore invented the Internet, Tucker?
CARLSON: I did know that.
KELLERMAN: Haven't you been paying attention?
CARLSON: A wonder he didn't get elected president. Max Kellerman. Thank you, Max.
KELLERMAN: Thank you.
On the May 26, 2006, edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, co-host and Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore referred to Gore as "the guy who invented the internet":
MOORE: Myron, I'm surprised that you're saying that Al Gore is stretching the truth. After all, this is the guy who invented the Internet. But let me ask a question.
ROBERT REICH (co-host): That is a -- that is very low blow, Stephen Moore.
MOORE: That's what we're here for.
REICH: You're a friend of mine. We want to elevate debate -- elevate debate.
On the May 15, 2006, edition of ABC News Now, ABC News correspondent Dan Harris said Gore "invented the Internet":
HARRIS: Our research department says there actually is no Six Flags Tehran. By the way, there is a Six Flags Great Adventure in New Jersey --
We move to yet another Al Gore invention: the seatbelt. Just kidding -- he only invented the Internet. But a lot of people are shunning safety these days and going unbuckled.
Another GOP myth that has wormed its way into the conventional wisdom. The Republicans can't govern worth a spit, but they sure know how to fabricate stories to lather up their idiot base.
We all know that Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. Anyone who still claims this is a grade-A moron.
However, what Al Gore actually claimed, that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet," is 100% true and accurate.
Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, the two guys who really did invent the Internet, had this to say about Gore:
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development... [As] the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Meme. Dead. Gone. Finished.
Let us not speak of it again.
link for reference:
Net builders Kahn, Cerf recognise Al Gore
This stuff should be spoken of... and often.
I'm not (*gulp*) afraid to admit I learned something... Whatever. Good link.
so easily dispel the miasma the Repugnants have cast upon us, using the MSM as flying monkeys . . .
so long as Nixon, Ford, Ronnie Raygun, Bungle I & II, and every Repugnant running for the White House in my memory, has to bear the weight of innumerable personal and important lies;
the MSM will cast as liars every Democrat or Independent with even the potential to file a candidacy - regardless of truth per se, or context.
So, Al Gore will continue to be assaulted until the media oligarchy is overthrown. My favorite would be limitation to 33% of the nation, singular mode (i.e., newprint OR television OR radio), and seize any excess accrued whether by intent or accident. Not a fan of Fairness Doctrine.
It may be a myth, and not what Gore meant at all........but his words certainly left the inference that he did invent the internet. He said he took the initiative in creating it - it's not a leap to take from that declarative sentence that he was responsible for it's birth.
And for any politician to say something that would even be interpreted that way.......well, they deserve the satirical, yet harmless, swipes because of it.
I think Gore recovered from it just fine.
"...took the initiative in creating the Internet."
I'm not even sure what he meant by that? It's like saying, "I took the initiative in creating a ham sandwich". Maybe I got someone else to do it for me? But, I took the 'initiative'? Strange use of words, for sure...
Do you know that the internet started as a loose collection of research facilities joined together using military grants?
It was called ARPANET and it wasn't a fully public system. It was run by a unit of the Defense Department called DARPA. Gore was one of the Congressment who took the initiative to help turn ARPANET into the internet.
Maybe you have happened upon why some of us who know about DARPA and its history understand this smear a little better than most.
No need to get testy. For those uninitiated... it's a poor choice of words by Gore. That's all I said.
He described what he did. The media distorted it, ran with it, and repeated it so often that a lie is now safely ensconced as truth in the public consciousness.
It's a very effective technique for one commentator to lie, distort or misquote and then the rest of the echo chamber to quote the distortion as true.
Gore for Decider in 08. Wait, make that President. We've had too much of the present Decidership the last six years.
the back 40 was, like, the alley behind the Excelsior Hotel in DC.
Another wealthy Socialist, never had a job, never wanted one, a pied piper of the gullible.
Electable (electible)?
of bush.
with you more. Elitists all.
Algor grew up on a ranch, also ... the back 40 was, like, the alley behind the Excelsior Hotel in DC.
Pfui. He spent summers working on his family's tobacco and cattle farm in Tennessee. The "back 40" was, like, the back 800. See, for example, here:
"never had a job"? Not true. Even if you discount the time he spent in the Army (but why would you?), he worked for five years as a reporter for the Nashville Tennessean.
Facts. Get used to them.
for five years. Had to quit that 'cause the right wing media was trying to control his reporting, I'll betcha.
Being a reporter on a daily newspaper is not a quote-job-unquote, it's a job. You said he never had one, but he did. Do you have a list of types of gainful employment that you don't feel are worthy of being called jobs, or is it just that anything Al Gore has done is ipso facto disqualified?
As far as I can tell, the reason that Gore left his job with the Tennessean is pretty straightforward: a congressional seat became vacant in the nearby 4th District, and Gore decided to run for it. Surely you don't object in the abstract to the idea of going into politics; this is something that even Republicans (and other people who aren't Al Gore) do from time to time.
I don't know what the politics of the Tennessean's management were like in 1976, and neither do you, I betcha.
Hear, hear. Cerf, Kahn, Kleinrock and others including my friend and former boss, Charley Kline, were involved in the technical advances that made the ARPANET. The process of turning ARPANET into The Internet was a political one, and for that I do give Al Gore the bulk of the credit. He did take the initiative. I remember the many predictions at that time of the imminent death of the Net. With Al Gore's hard work to understand the technical issues, he worked out the political solution that turned a private network of defense contractors and universities into the popular phenomenon it is.
couldn't have happened w/o Algor?
In the 80's, when leveraged buyouts took off, people were instant millionaires just because they happened to be in the room when summa those deals were made. OK, fine.
Same thing w/ Gore. Coulda been (woulda been) anybody.
Get serious.
Just kneejerk stupidity.
Gore had the foresight to see that the Internet might be worth something. If anybody 'coulda done it,' then anybody woulda. I don't recall too many other signatories to the original legislation.
Why are you right wing types so incredibly lame? You're just nasty, nasty, nasty. If we opened your heads up, what would we find down there, worms?
It would be quite difficult to give any credit to anyone at all. People just are standing in the right place at the right time.
Everything is just a mere coincidence I suppose then.
Are you a Calvinist?
either Calvin OR Arminius?
If bill gates hadn't done it, someone else would have. If, God forbid, BUSH didn't do it, someone else would have.....right? No one can claim credit for any political acheivement?
That is easy. It WAS Gore who saw the commercial application for the type of networking the Defense Dept used in their Arpanet, he used his position in the Science and Commerce subcommittee to push for funds and reasearch to bring about the internet he is largely responsible for the internet being here today. Taking credit for such insight and action which helps people is what politicians do.
I appreciate the comments and links. I still contend it was a poor choice of words. And I still think these guys need to be smarter than that. Maybe he did explain himself fully at the time. I don't know... Did he?
I do not doubt that the GOP slanderers took hold of this, ran with it and made much about nothing. But, if Gore wants to run in '08... he has to make better choices.
It was not a poor choice of words. He accurately described what he did. He took credit for something he deserved credit for. The rightwing turned it into a smear.
Despite the fact that multiple people have now shown you to be wrong.
Which isn't a surprise. That Right Wing Echo Chamber needs a brick wall to be effective.
...so, now I've been labeled a conduit for the 'right wing echo chamber'. Whatever you say.
You are not rightwing, nor unreasonable. I do think you are wrong this time but hey disagreement is all it is, no venal motives. I think I agree with you 90% of the time.
I appreciate it. And, I obviously no less about his subject than most around here... But, hey! It ain't the first time I've put my foot in my mouth ;-)
...that should be 'know less'... oops.
It wasn't a poor choice of words. It was a precise description of what he did.
Need a definition of 'precise?' I know sloppy thinking is in style right now, but that's no excuse for evading the facts.
It should be remembered that Gore was the victim of a major hatchet job by the press, while Bush Jr.-- well, he just slid on by.
Remember all the commentators who giggled and rolled their eyes on camera whenever anybody pursued the 2000 election fiasco? One of the great things about 'Farenheit 911' is that it immortalized all of this inanity-- remember "Navy Seals Rock!!?
History will not be kind to the wingnuts.
I stated my opinion. I think his choice of words was poor. Never once -- contrary to what most here seem to think.... not once did I say I believed it or that was what I thought. Man... little too sensitive. I'll remember to go 'party-line' next time. Sheesh.
"I still contend it was a poor choice of words."
Your words after multiple people posted multiple sources, including those quoting the creators of the technology behind the "The Internets". It might be an opinion, which you're welcome to, but it's incorrect, as has been shown over and over. And that kind of thinking plays into the hands of those who want to propogate these myths.
That is true. I don't blame Gore one bit, though. You can't go around qualifying every sentence ad infinitum and you can't look hesitant either. The Republicans are going to do this sort of thing. It is a given. The only option is to live your life the same as always, but be prepared to counter aggressively with the truth, citing objective sources like factcheck.org and asking factcheck to audit what you have said possibly (I don't know if they do that). Admit to mistakes and point out where your opponent is lying.
That kind of commitment to honesty would be admired.
Gore's only possible fault is that he apparently did not feel it was dignified to have to defend his remarks. I suppose I would fault him for that.
Chasing one's tail perpetually is a lost cause. But, I would like to see these guys publicly denounce the liars... or, at least, explain their position better. Even if it is at a later date... Use a little humor, "...some say I invented the Internet?" Whatever...
Sometimes, I fear the Dems are too afraid to jump in there because they don't want to look... I don't know, too aggressive? ... or, petty?
Alexander Haig has showed good humor over the years when reminded of his "I'm in control here" declaration following the attempted fatal shooting of Reagan.
I think we look for a sense of humor in our public figures (politicians or even just entertainers) as indicative of a balanced phsyche, following a questionable statement. We forgive fairly easily.
As political strategy, it is essential.
Got that?
then. How's that?
The irony being I read reporters who travelled with Gore say he HAD a great sense of humor that when he was in a less structured setting he was funny and personable. I know he didnt show that as a candidate. He was wooden and stilted. I certainly think Gore would have been a good president, though I didnt vote for him in 2000 but he wasnt a great candidate.
...or read quotes of Gore himself joking about all this, saying he invented this or that.
Al Haig should have joked about his gaff, cuz, oh, you know, you kind of expect a Secretary of State and former four star general to know what the Constitution says about the line of succession. And he didn't only joke about it (assuming he did) he also defended his statement by saying "I wasn’t talking about transition. I was talking about the executive branch, who is running the government. That was the question asked. It was not, 'who is in line should the President die?'" (Wikipedia)
because it was part of the myth that the republicans created that gore was a liar. and the media was quite happy to go along with it, as they were the "dean scream".
in answer to tommy.
...however, how long will it take for the Dems to realize that the Republicans (yes, the Republicans) play dirty. It's a tried-and-true method for that clan. Yes, yes (I can hear the groans...) all politicians play dirty. Well, the GOP is ruthless... they will use anything and destroy their opponents. The way they threw McCain under the bus in 2000... disgusting.
Both Dean and Gore l... they should've known better. Doesn't excuse any of the bad behavior from the right wingers on either account. But, Dems need to play a smarter game of pool.
have known better. he had just done poorly in iowa, he was addressing his supporters, and they were yelling loudly, so he was attempting to yell over them. i suppose he should have thought gee, fox is going to take a tape of this with all the crowd sound removed and try to make me look like a maniac, and the rest of the media will go along with it. is that what you mean.
...yeah. That is kinda what I mean.
I was not really aware of the degree, the level of nasty bs that is perpetuated by the pundits, GOP, etc... until I started watching this site regularly. MMFA is on the money most of the time. The Dems need to be tough and direct... Maybe yelling at the top of his lungs at a rally -- no matter how happy the vibe was -- wasn't the smartest thing to do.
I have said nothing about who Gore or Dean are as people or politicians. In fact, I like them both. Dean very much. I don't know. This is a really mean-spirited and nasty biz - politics.
to be heard over his supporters, who were yelling very loudly. reporters who were there in the room at the time said they thought nothing of it and were surprised when it turned into a controversy. it was the media that made something out of nothing. it had zero to do with being careful.
And, he got screwed royally in the process. So bad, in fact, that it cost him the race (I think). I'm really not disagreeing with you though. I just don't know what the best course of action is against these extremely wiley and vile propagandists/smear merchants. I don't know what the answer is.
You can already see the set-up: first the admiration, then the agreeable plausibility, then the "hard questions," then the naysaying, the ridicule, the hackneyed lies, the mirth at the mere mention of his name.
The scream did not cost Dean the race. Iowa was already in the books before that speech and Dean took it in the shorts by his own party. The scream probably led to him losing worse than he would have in the next few primaries but the die was already cast. Dean was done. The Dems didn't have the political stones to put up an anti-war candidate in '04.
"The scream did not cost Dean the race." --Bruce
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think that is arguable. I, personally was considering voting for Dean, but the scream sealed it for me. I thought he was a real loon at the time. Many talk show hosts and the news media played it ad nauseum. Of course, I never really found out the details until I happened upon this site a year or so after it happened.
Dean had a sizeable lead in some important states that managed to fade away to practically nothing after the scream. Of course that was coincidental to a poor finish in Iowa (as I remember --I'm too lazy to look everything up), so it may be difficult as you pointed out to lay it all on the scream.
Dean may have been the candidate who most reflected Democratic voters values but voters were too pragmatic and decided to put up a candidate they thought would have a better chance in the general. Republican Lite. Republicans wanted to run against anti-War Dean as they saw this as a sure victory, whether true or not. (I think true).
Neither of us will ever know for sure. I do think overall you are right about a whole lot of people voting for Kerry because they thought him most electable and thinking the most important thing was getting rid of Bush. Kerry wasnt really anti war given a real anti war alternative might have made a difference.
.. about "should have known better" but what do you do when your opponent plays dirty? They are going to take everything you say or do and pick it apart, use it out of context, and even, as in this case, change words to change the meaning and intent of a statement.
I've heard people say that Dean's mistake was in addressing a room full of supporters (with his "victory" yell) instead of addressing a national audience. That may be a mistake in strategy. But it doesn't warrent tagging the man for life as a maniac. The problem lies with the dirty trixters, somewhat with those befallen by those tricks (but nobody is perfect), and probably mostly with those that accept these bogus explanations as fact, or use them as a basis for making important decisions like those about who will run our country.
... isn't the Democratic candidate. It's the echo chamber on the other side. Democrats have nothing like the umpteen "commentators" and "comedians" on the other side grabbing onto these non-issues and repeating them ad-nauseum until the lie becomes the "fact."
Bush has stuck his foot in his mouth countless times, and has stepped on his tongue countless other times. The man can barely get a full sentence out of his mouth. And somehow that doesn't (or at least didn't) detract from his image as the "guy you wanna have a beer with." We've now suffered through six years and counting of an imcompent dry drunk as President, and the reason? Gore supposedly took credit for something he didn't do. Gore actually accomplished things. Bush had to be bailed out of his messes time after time.
It's really sad that less than half the voters in 2000 were suckered by the Right Wing. Particularly when the Right has competent candidates.
... the Democrats must be extra careful (my original point). I'm not sure why the chips are stacked so high against the left wing or the Democrats. But, right now... it's pretty bad.
that Dean screaming incident raised Dean's stock in my eyes. It was just high spiritedness. Your impression ( that it was a negative) I have never been able to figure. I don't think many on the right actually thought that was a negative. Maybe got a kick out of the media replaying it and replaying it...
I think everybody eventually gets drawn into thinking like a political strategist.
Seriously, is it any worse than the way the media replays and replays Bush's (or anybody else's) gaffs?
Long story short, for every imbalance, or bias, MMFA points out, there is easily one or more on the other side to balance it.
Media's JOB is to stir the pot. Not that I want to see this site disappear. I've learned a lot (kicking and screaming) from all of you. Just don't expect me to go easily.
Republicans lie more than Dems because it's all about money and expedience-- that's the value system, and it's why things work out for many of these people-- when expedience is your only tool, and you've been raised this way from birth, everything you do is easy to justify.
Combine that with hate, privilege, loathing for others, and a mystical, crumbling religious ideology, you end up having a very potent force at hand.
Democrats don't believe that buying and selling is the ultimate expression of human life on earth. It sounds corny, but it's true now, because the Repubs. have painted themselves into such an ideological corner these days.
Face it-- the people in the media nowadays didn't get there by being contemplative or battle worn individuals. They got there solely through ruthless ambition, all competing against a huge number of other people equally determined. That's going to reduce the brain pool quite a bit-- and any innate empathy for others.
on the right, but you describe some on the left at the same time. Where do you get such ridiculous bias?
"Priviledge, loathing for others..." Never thought of myself as priviledged, don't loathe ANYBODY (life's too short)... it's just interesting to wonder what life experiences have brought you to this mindset.
The same adjectives can be used to describe members of any political party, any group of ample size, I suppose. I'm just sad you haven't met good people (there are many on both sides of the aisle) on what you consider to be the "right".
just landed from mars? the dean scream was jumped on by all the right wingers as proof dean was nuts.
and every right wing talker had that scream on a little sound machine and they would push the button every time his name came up.
and we all said, "okay, now he seems unpresidential" and had to give up on a potentially very viable candidate.
just like Kerry looked too french and Gore invented the internet.
They have been successful in convincing the American voter that these absolutely superficial matters are important for choosing a President.
of anything. It might have scared some Dems (from a political strategy standpoint) over to other Dem(s), but all I saw was campaigning as usual (it WAS in a noisy setting--he was trying to be heard).
The media playing it over and over didn't change my mind on anything--I expect the media to do that to ANY candidate, and they do.
I think it is to bring the truth to and inform the electorate. As Jefferson said "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.
also
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.
the media's job IS. I was referring to the role they have assumed, and looking at the history of the media under regimes where they are given free reign, they have a dismal record for staying objective OR truthful.
I completely agree
...that Democrats in general need to be more intelligent in how they approach the media, but I don't like anything taking away focus on the concerted smear job the media (liberal and otherwise) did on this decent, intelligent man.
The "invented the internet" smear, the "earth tones" smear, the "grew up in a fancy hotel room" smear, all these contributed to getting Bush elected in 2000, which led to us getting stuck in Iraq, and even Jon Carry kant hepl us now.
...And, again... my comment (one lame comment) was not meant to detract from the fact that the GOP plays by some nasty rules. It's about the win, by whatever means necessary. If Gore were President now? He probably would've been sued by some Republican, or dragged through the mud, or whatever....
But, the world would certainly be a better place. That's for damn sure.
... we sure as hell wouldn't be in Iraq, that's for sure.
"but his words certainly left the inference that he did invent the internet." --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First of all, Gore cannot "le[ave] the inference". An audience infers. A speaker implies.
Secondly, the use of the word "invented" is hugely deceptive. It is obvious that Gore didn't "invent" the internet and never claimed to. So use of that word is for the sole purpose of marginalizing what he really did say.
Tommy, I love yah. You're my bro, but you couldn't be more wrong on this one.
implied he CREATED the internet. He didn't say he supported and worked to pass legislation (signed by Reagan and George H.W. Bush by the way - guess they created it too) in making the current internet a reality. He said he created it. You can't create something other people already created. Just as he was prone to lie and exagerate to whatever audience he was speaking to ala his buddy William Jefferson Clinton, Gore brought it on himself. His pattern of wreckless exagerations and trying to cater to his crowd was legendary.
Her is a personal favorite to tobacco farmers:
"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.
Then he tried to claim he was anti-tobacco.
By the way, he also said he could barely turn on a computer let alone use one. Kind of hard to believe the "CREATOR" of the internet couldn't use a computer but that's our Al.
"He said he created it." --LH
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No he didn't. "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Since you have once again (Surprise. Surprise.) demonstrated an utter lack of either reading comprehension and/or disingenuousness, you might want to quote people verbatim from now on.
Man that was weak. The actual quote is in the above article for God's sake!
a tobacco ho and shame on you for sayin' it.
Go and spread your tobacco spin somewhere else.
Gave the impression that he did something, which he in fact DID DO. He is largely responsible for the internet coming along when it did. Even Newt Gingrich and the person who wrote the code for searching which makes the internet what it is have admitted this
I am but one of many who believed this criticism of Gore was true. So Yes it was harmful to Gore, me and others.
Thanks for telling me the truth though. It's nice to finally know that he didn't say or mean that at all.
All this time I've been wondering about the poor guy. Now I know the truth. - Thanks Y'all.
>>>it's not a leap to take from that declarative sentence that he was responsible for it's birth.
Certainly not a "leap" for those who wished and still wish to do Gore political harm, and to perpetuate a myth long after it's been debunked, whether it's sheer stupidity, laziness, or outright malice.
Gore didn't mean he "invented" the Internet, and hasn't deserved the harmful so-called "swipes" he's had to endure for six-plus years, thanks to folks like Tommy.
Tommy, can we put this in perspective. Gore's wording was clumsy at best. What he should have said was he "...took the initiative in introducing the legislation that created the Internet." Gore left no indication that he was responsible for inventing the Internet and he never used the word to describe his efforts associated with the actual program. It might be true to say Gore has "recovered from it"...that's not what is at issue in the MM article. The MM article is stating that the media, even in contradiction of their past statements, are simply re-introducing the urban myth and running it up the flagpole again. Like Jimmy Carter's "malaise" remark (he never said that in his speech) or Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" ( he never said that either) this is the same right wing short attention span stupidity that has to stop. By contrast in the 2000 debate Junior gets up there and says he is good man for bipartisan work because with his efforts the Texas legislature passed a patients' Bill of Rights. The media never called him on the fact that he vetoed the bill when it first got to his desk and it was passed in the next session by such a wide margin that Bunnypants had no choice but to let it become law. That kind of resume inflation by Bush was never called by the press. Gore's work on the internet started in 1986 with the Super Computer Technologies Act (based on the French model...sorry, had to bring it up) and the system was finally approved by Bush's father in 1991. Bush's father then tried running the following year taking credit for the system.
Gore's wording wasn't "clumsy at best."
By buying into this lie, this phony premise, you've already lost the argument.
The Right lives by phony premises. You have to destroy them at the start. There's nothing more infuriating than watching a Dem 'rebuttal' start by saying to some wingnut misstatement, "Yes I agree, but..."
Once you buy into the premises, all you can do is argue about the logic. Often their logic is sound. It's their PRESUMPTIONS that are in error, "at best."
Not taking issue with your overall post, but Clinton DID utter that famous sound bite. This is off the Purdue web site:
[link to web.ics.purdue.edu]
"In mid-1992, in the midst of the presidential campaign fever, then-Arkansas governor and presidential hopeful William Jefferson Clinton declared the now famous statement, “I feel your pain” to a prospective supporter who was dealing with personal problems. With this succinct soundbite, the former president touched on the essence of the difficult idea we call ‘empathy.’ Clinton’s troubled family life – both in his youth and his (mature) adulthood – and ‘down-home’ rural upbringing won him fans and emotional support across the nation, and he is now known as one of the most compassionate leaders in United States history. At left, Clinton is pictured surveying flood damage in Davenport, IA., on July 4, 1993.1 He claimed to ‘feel the pain’ of those who suffered."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hate to nitpick, but there are no references I could find in that paper that cited a credible source. It just says he "declared" it or he "claimed" (according to whom?) it without citation. You may be right, he may have said it, but your source does not provide evidence to back up that idea that I could find and I am a big Boilermaker fan BTW.
Where did it come from? On the surface it seems fairly innocuous. You never know in the political cycle what will be used against you.
As is the case in these matters...where there is smoke there is usually fire.
"As is the case in these matters...where there is smoke there is usually fire." --hogprint
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually I have seen the opposite is the case enough of the time that direct quotes from reliable sources should be expected (if not demanded) before anything can be taken as truth.
In the past, I have tried, often unsuccessfully to chase down original sources for quotes. It can be very difficult to do. It seems that few people document their sources. They often cut and paste things from questionable sources or I have also seen people turn paraphrases (often inaccurate or misleading ones) into direct quotes.
Many times it seems the smoke is just coming from a smoke machine. No fire at all.
I didn't invent the phrase "it must be a slow news day at mmfa" but I'm going to use it.
Out of nowhere comes this thread about a retired politician and current environmental activist...about a controversy that is years old. Keerist, is this how the staff at mmfa spend their day...dreaming of past glories and slights?
Brings to mind the great hit by Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen...Lost in the Ozone.
It is not a slow news day. This lie persists even though it has been thoroughly debunked.
Gore may be a Presidential candidate in the next cycle. It is always better to clear up this lie (controversy -- as you call it) and give other posters amunition to fight against it when it inevitably comes up again. (Many conservatives just can't seem to help themselves.)
This is probably one of the most vicious political rumors in the way it has unjustly ridiculed a man who should be admired for his obvious intelligence and visionary views.
- “I’m not running, I’m not planning to run, I’m not thinking about running. I’ve found other ways to serve" - Gore, June 06.
- I don't know all of his reasons - but I know that he has no plans to run in 2008...the way he always says it is, 'I don't see any circumstances under which I would run for president.' - Al Gore III - Dec 06
- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said on Monday he would not run in the next presidential race, despite rumors that he might..Asked whether he had plans to stand in the 2008 election, Gore ruled it out, adding: "I'm involved in a different kind of campaign." - Jan 07
I guess I'll take him at his word and stand on the assertion that this thread by mmfa is not very relevant.
it's relevant because it's media misinformation. it's not the we support gore for president site.
My bad. You are right. I shouldn't have fallen for an apparent cheap trick by Wesley. As I said before. A lie is a lie. That is all the relevance needed. MMFA is here to address this very sort of thing.
anything you said. i agreed with you. it was directed at wesley.
It is a perfect example of an undead talking point. One of those rightwing talking points that is immortal there is no way to drive a stake through its heart. No matter how often or how thourougly it is debunked, no matter how completely it is shown to be absolutly wrong, it keeps coming back like that guy in the hockey mask in one of his movies
cutting a Social Security card in half ('64 election--Democrats' TV misinformation.)
That image, served on the gullible, defeated Goldwater.
Your analogy is foolish. The Dems gave that up, what, FORTY YEARS AGO? There's no comparison between that and the continued mirth over Gore's remark. None.
Goldwater was destroyed in the election you are claiming that was solely because of that political stunt? The people wanted a continuation of the Kennedy programs. The didnt want what Goldwater was selling. I remember Goldwater. I still respect the mans career. I didnt agree with him but he was an honest politician and spoke his mind. The electorate had a lot more against him than that cheap stunt which I would decry today. He was never going to beat Johnson
Looks like our loss.
However, MMFA's mission is to point out conservative misinformation. It would stand to reason that correcting these recurring seemingly pervasive myths from time to time fall directly within MMFA's mission statement. Would you prefer people remain ignorant? What cause would that serve?
MMFA can't help it that some people are apparently so ignorant, intentionally misinformed and/or thick-headed they haven't heard the truth.
There are also some liberal posters apparently who did not know this myth was false.
Maybe you are one of the apparently few conservative posters who already knew this information was false. Good for you.
- correcting these recurring seemingly pervasive myths - open-mind
No problemo...mmfa chooses whatever topic that suits them.
There seems to be a myth that Gore is going to run for president in 08. He has been adamantly on record stating that he is not running.
My response was simply to set the record straight. Since he says he is not running...the thread appears irrelevant to me...nothing more...nothing less.
You said this thread isnt very relevant. I dont think Gore will run either, but that doesnt mean this thread isnt relevant.
>>>a controversy that is years old. Keerist, is this how the staff at mmfa spend their day...dreaming of past glories and slights?
A person concerned about accuracy in the media (hint: it's not you, obviously) could have chosen to send a note to the Wash. Post, LA Times, or AP to ask why they continue perpetuating a lie that is "years old" (your words).
Instead, you post a derisive comment to Media Matters. Which only goes to show that you'd be quite delighted for the Gore/Internet myth to go on and on for years and years (like most right-wing smear-minded people), while you write little irate remarks to anyone who dares disturb you by raising the issue.
Then why all the fuss about that Reagans documentary a few years back? He was a retired politician too. Were you all just trying to relive past glories? Or were you all just making a lot of noise over nothing?
old and new, on the other side of the spectrum. The right just hasn't caught on to how to make a (non-profit, oh yeah!) living out of sanctimonious BITCHING about it, yet.
I call BS. The MRC has been around for years, that's a perfect platform for exactly what you're talking about. They've got the money and the resources, yet come up with very little misinformation from the left. It's not from lack of trying.
Incidentally, there's plenty of sanctimonious bitching on that site, except there's not nearly as much cause for it.
From their website:
The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).
Nothing is mentioned about misinformation.
They document bias, slanting of news.
A perfect example from today, about the NY Times report tha today over 50% of women live without a spouse. Like Paul Harvey would say, "The rest of the story..." "Women" includes 15 year olds. Imagine that, 15 year old "women" living without spouses! We can thank MRC and Newsbusters for pointing out what is behind the headline.
"Nothing is mentioned about misinformation.
They document bias, slanting of news." --Missourishowme
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree with you. MRC and their related sites are admittedly more devoted to speculation and reading the minds of newspeople than worrying about silly things like factual misinformation.
When a newsperson seemingly raises an eyebrow or frowns at an important part of the story, MRC is on the spot to interpret for us what it all means and how conservatives are ultimately being given the shaft by it.
When a newsperson seemingly raises an eyebrow or frowns at an important part of the story, MRC is on the spot to interpret for us what it all means and how conservatives are ultimately being given the shaft by it.
It must not be TimesWatch, since that is about the New York Times, a newspaper with newspersons but no eyebrows or frowns.
If it is Newsbusters, why not link to the frown you find misinterpreted.
Newsbusters does report on errors:
[link to newsbusters.org]
[link to newsbusters.org]
and what they consider misstatements:
[link to newsbusters.org]
Again, post a link with reference to a frown. I would like to see that one!
.
"If it is Newsbusters, why not link to the frown you find misinterpreted[?]" --missourishowme
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Firstly, I did not write it was necessarily "misinterpreted" so I will ignore your last three words. That is a moot point and you put words in my mouth to begin with. Whether someone's interpretation is right or wrong is purely subjective for the most part as well. I hope you will also agree that such characterizations move the argument towards the individual or are ad hominem in nature and away from the actual argument or the words. Mrc.org doesn't say someone was "apparently" frowning either. They say he WAS frowning. Mind-reading. Just utter silliness.
Now, back to your question: "If it is Newsbusters, why not link to the frown...[?]":
The examples that came to mind were at mrc.org. Here is an example which shows how mrc.org mentions its interpretations of gestures instead of only focusing on the actual words of Bryant Gumbel:
'A disgusted Gumbel frowned and he ended the segment: "Jack Skeen, thank you, it’s 14 past, let’s check the weather.'
or another one about Gumbel a week later:
"Gumbel then let loose on the August 22 CBS show with his disgust for Helms: "Helms is, let me pick my words here, an unapologetic right-wing conservative, I guess we could say. Is his departure good news for all but hard-right Republicans?" (Between saying "right-wing" and "conservative" Gumbel hesitated for a second as he frowned.)"
or this from a R. Brent Bozell III apparently emblematic column about how great the (IMO --lapdog) press was after 9-11 in apparent contrast to the way it was before:
"One cannot overestimate the importance of [the press'] work, either. All of America was hanging on to their every word during the attacks and in their aftermath as it began to crawl out of the wreckage. The press responded with fierce professionalism. Gone was the cynicism -- the upturned eyebrow, the sophisticated grin, the pithy rebuttal – meant to signal to the public it shouldn’t really believe the spin it’s hearing."
I came across a significant amount of mind-reading in my brief research as well that I had mentioned earlier. I can share some examples of that as well if you would like. It is pretty fun to cruise their archives. This little gem for example (right before the Iraq invasion) was absolutely hilarious for how wrong the premises were at the time and how awful that made the conclusions and the reasoning. The article actually ridicules what turned out to be much of the correct reasoning.
When mrc.org mentions mannerisms, it belittles their arguments. Why do they have to go ad hominem?
You clarify that what you really are objecting to is Newsbusters MENTIONING the frown, eyebrow raise, saying it detracts from what the person said. I see your point, but disagree. One of the problems people have with me in my responses here is that they think I am angry, but I truly am not. People cannot see the smirk on my face, and I dislike that lack of communication. At times I add a little hehe to indicate that I am not red-faced and angry, more amused.
An official transcript is one thing. But for ordinary retelling of what someone said, I would prefer to read of their body motions than to leave it out.
Again, I say that all of the things you cite are mentions, not interpretations. I see how you can be annoyed, and in our free marketplace, you can vote against Newsbusters by not frequenting their site, their loss.
"You clarify that what you really are objecting to is Newsbusters MENTIONING the frown" --MOshowme
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First of all, let me say, I haven't ever gotten the impression you were angry. I apologize if I have said something to bring that into the argument. It wasn't intentional. You seem to be a reasonable poster for the most part. I respect your opinion. We just disagree on some things and I am fine with that. I may come accross as more angry than I am as well. I try to be respectful (although I admit I fail at that often).
As to your quote above, I would say "the alleged frown". It is apparently used to color the supposed thoughts of the speaker. Someone could watch Gumbel all day and think he is frowning the whole time. Others may believe he is just thinking hard at times or whatever. Maybe its just gas? By assigning a definite gesture to him as they do, MRC is assigning thoughts and/or motives (they couldn't possibly know for sure) that go along with it. It is simply playing dirty.
It reminds me of a scene in Fahrenheit 9-11 where George W. Bush is shown on the screen for the 7 minutes after he was told a second plane had flown into the WTC. Moore was mocking the President, by saying sarcastically stupid supposed thoughts that were going through the President's head. Maybe I am remembering it wrong. Perhaps it was another part of the movie. I just couldn't help, but think what a cheap shot it was. The MRC is largely doing the same thing.
It would be nice if the conservative sites like mrc &al could provide an alternative to MMFA and/or FAIR that was a little more professional and did not resort to such questionable tactics.
It appears that liberal sites like MMFA and FAIR.org generally would rather critique words and arguments and let us decide for ourselves what gestures mean what if we choose to care about it, whereas conservative sights are apparently more interested in the tricky business of telling us what people really think, not based solely on words, but often on less distinct and more arguable things like gestures, body language, (frequently dubious) perceptions and assignations of nefarious hidden motives.
The approach of the MRC and others deeply degrade the public discourse.
No, you have been one of the more straightforward posters on this site, and I appreciate your comments.
Others have somehow gotten this impression that I am angry (or whining) when I post, and I have tried to dispel it: I could post rah rah agreements on other sites, but find it more interesting to engage people with differing views than mine.
Sorry that I have to run, and this will probably be archived by the time I return.
Take care.
I didn't say that was their mission statement. I'm saying they could post liberal misinformation if they thought there was anything to post. The idea that there's no website for this because conservatives haven't figured out how to do it is simply beyond absurd. As open mind points out, the vast majority of the items they have are quite weak, if not downright dishonest.
Incidentally, the item you posted is technically misinformation, since 15-year old girls are not women. What the nefarious liberal purpose of that misinformation is supposed to be is a bit of a mystery, but still you pulled the rug out from under your own argument.
[link to newsbusters.org]
The above is a link to the Newsbuster article about this NY Times article.
I think I can speak for the entire vast right wing conspiracy in saying that the New York Times uses (abuses?) statistics for its liberal purposes, such as praising the successes of feminism. Read the link with details about where the NY Times thinks the line is drawn between girls and women.
The orignal document refers the folks involved as "females", no bias there. The NY Times then calls them "women" in a headline. You may call it misinformation, MRC calls it bias. My rug remains just where it should be.
Oh, and congratulations about meeting MMFA standards and not hurling insults in your comment title, like you did yesterday.
"Read the link with details about where the NY Times thinks the line is drawn between girls and women." --MOshowme
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Times apparently just used the best data available that apparently did not differentiate between a 50 year old (or more) female and a 15 year old female. It mentions the criteria right in the article though. Accusing the NYT of deception or misinformation is a bit of a stretch when they include the critical information (that rarely happens with the way conservatives dole out misinformation). The NYT is so apparently helpful by including where they got their data and the age range involved, they not only provide the ammunition, they teach you how to use the gun to attack them. You guys are pretty spoiled.
The only major gnit I have to pick with the NYT on that item is that they should have avoided potential controversy by referring to the "women" in the article as "females over the age of 15". Maybe the NYT was trying to make a point. You guys are much better at reading their minds to discern their bias or intent apparently than I am.
"I think I can speak for the entire vast right wing conspiracy in saying that the New York Times uses (abuses?) statistics for its liberal purposes, such as praising the successes of feminism."
I'm not convinced it's "liberal" misinformation. Seems to me like the same statistic could be used to show how America is losing its family values, how too many women are divorced and we need to do something about it, blah blah blah. Did the article specifically praise feminism? Otherwise this seems like a stretch, just like most of the MRC articles.
"You may call it misinformation, MRC calls it bias."
Then they're wrong. Wrong information is misinformation. Bias, the assertion that there's a purpose to it, that it shows a slant, is MUCH harder to prove, and they fail at it consistently. For example, I often see David Letterman's top 10 lists on the site. Did these people ever listen to Jay Leno's monologues during the Clinton administration (and after, really)? My God. Also any mention of any fact that reflects badly on Republicans, even if true, if fair, anything...it's all proof of "bias".
As for the insult, when you say something idiotic, you get called an idiot. It's not too likely you're going to give me a guilt trip over that.
"Did the article specifically praise feminism? " -brabantio
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The possibilty that the NYT wasn't thinking what newsbusters apparently thinks they are thinking is just unthinkable.
Apparantly you have never heard the names Fallwell, Robertson and Swaggart just to name a few
When they smear Michael Savage, as they did today in their introduction to the transcript by noting that he called civil rights a con when in fact he said it had "become a con." But liberals are incapable of misinformation, so what the hell was I thinking?
Here is what he said
and you're gonna understand what civil rights has become, the con it's become in this country. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That IS saying civil rights is a con.
Ok Solon, so saying that civil rights has "become a con" in the US is the same as saying that civil rights is a con. Just like saying "I took the initiatve in creating the internet" is the same as saying "I invented the internet." Which distortion is further from the truth? But then again, I'm asking the same person who said that the GOP evolved from the Know-Nothings. I should know more than to expect rationality from ignorami.
If it has "become" a con, then it is now a con. Right? You don't really have any alternate explanation for Savage's comments, no innocent interpretation. For Gore, however, it's quite obvious what he meant because he actually DID take the initiative in creating the internet as we now know it. "I invented the internet" is not nearly the same thing, so that is quite obviously the bigger distortion.
Savage is clearly saying that civil rights is a "con." He may not have always thought so, but he thinks so now. That's the MMFA point, and it is indeed well taken.
I guess precision in thinking has become the preserve of the left, no? Who would have thought that back in the days of responsible conservative academics and businessmen?
First it IS the same thing. Just like saying that I have become an adult IS saying that I am an adult. As for the know nothings I am astonished at your ignorance. You didnt know they were a real political movement and that what became the Republicans absorbed them? I learned that in like 6th Grade
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1850s. It grew up as a popular reaction to fears that major cities were being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants whom they regarded as hostile to American values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. It was a short-lived movement mainly active 1854-56; it demanded reform measures but few were passed. There were few prominent leaders, and the membership, mostly middle-class and Protestant, apparently was soon absorbed by the Republican Party in the North.
"Ok Solon, so saying that civil rights has "become a con" in the US is the same as saying that civil rights is a con." --IO
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Looks like someone has some unresolved issues on another thread. Why don't you take up your argument over there instead of re-arguing the same old stuff over here.
You are neither interesting nor very observant. Your analogy, as those from most Conservatives, is bogus. That's the problem with black and white thinking...it seems to make analogous thinking impossible.
>>>"[Savage] said it had "become a con."<<<
You're not even quoting Savage correctly.
Savage: "...you're gonna understand what civil rights has become, the con it's become in this country."
In any case, Savage's remark was denigrating, insulting, and way, way out of line. Sensible citizens can clearly see that. Savage fans and apologists rush to a bigot's defense.
"In any case, Savage's remark was denigrating, insulting, and way, way out of line. Sensible citizens can clearly see that. " Always an effective argumentative technique: 1) point out an insignificant grammatical error that your opponent has made 2) declare a statement such as "sensible citizens can clearly see" my point of view Wow Davey, you are like, SOO smart and convincing too.
>>>1) point out an insignificant grammatical error that your opponent has made 2) declare a statement such as "sensible citizens can clearly see" my point of view Wow Davey, you are like, SOO smart and convincing too.<<<
I didn't say your mistake was "significant" or that it made my case. I simply said "you didn't even quote Savage correctly". And I was right-you quoted him wrong. That's all. So instead of acknowledging your mistake, you reply like a six-year-old.
You're defending Savage, a bigot in my opinion. That and your grade school reply doesn't say much for you.
does it not? legalising the internet for civvies is not even close to creation
I created a ham sandwich; but I didn't invent it....but that's beside the point.
If bush were to say "I've enacted sanctions against so-and-so," would you call him a liar because he, personally, did no such thing? No, you wouldn't. You 'd recognize that while others actually performed the act, bush TOOK THE INITIATIVE IN CREATING IT.
I've been reading through this thread ever impatiently hoping that someone would make the "ham sandwich" point. Another analogy comes to mind. My wife an I didn't invent our children...but we sure took the initiative in creating them!
I have heard people say that life is created at conception. I have never heard anyone say that life is invented at conception.
That would be stupid.
"legalising the internet for civvies," as you call it, is not even close to accurate.
If a person took the initiative to fund development of a revolutionary new aircraft, one wouldn't be correct in asserting that he simply made flying available to more people.
Much more was done than simply signing a paper and flipping a switch to "create the internet." DARPANET was nowhere near developed to the point required. That's why it kinda had to be CREATED again.
But carefully read the rest of what I wrote, ESPECIALLY you Salon.
More complicated than a second grade primer. It is clear you have the reading comprehension of a gerbil. There WAS no minor gramatical error. What Weiener said is what he said. It IS the same as saying that civil rights are a con. There is no other reasonable interpretation of those words. Find a five year old to explain it to you, perhaps he can tell you all about the know nothings too.
Observer has become an ignorant ass.
Remember dude, I did not say that you are an ignorant ass. I said that you had become one.
DO YOU GET IT YET?
Saying civil rights have become a con means that the current way "civil rights" are manipulated by alleged leaders is a con, it does not mean that civil rights are conceptually a con.
You are not worth half a penny of my time or any other serious person's time. THAT is the greatest truth about yourself that you have ever heard in your life and THAT ends any further dialogue in which I will engage with you.
make that promise to the rest of us?
enjoy sparring with most of you. I disagree with much of what you say but at least I can find a logical progression in most posters' arguments. I do not, however, have time for ignorami like Solon.
It's "ignoramuses," not "ignorami."
You are a moron. Its not my fault your ignorance caused you to put your foot in your mouth because as per usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Its not my fault that your model of a cerebral cortex is sadly inferior. Respond, dont respond, dress up in a clown suit and dance a jig, what do I care.
"But carefully read the rest of what I wrote, ESPECIALLY you Salon."
-----
Why should we take the time to carefully read something you haven't taken the time to carefully write?
The poster's name is Solon, not Salon.
No wonder you couldn't even quote Savage correctly. Perhaps a remedial course in reading and comprehension would be to your benefit.
As I implied above, I have no use for him.
he was starting to tell you about gerbils...
Maybe you should ask Solon about it in the Savage thread. (I would provide a link, but you are just going to have to do your best to find it.)
However what I think he really objected to was me educating him of the Know Nothing movement and its relationship to the GOP. His sad lack of historical knowlege being exposed for all to see seems to have embarrased the guy. Hey it happens to all of us. I have been shown to be outright wrong a couple of times in these threads. Its embarassing, you accept your medicine admit your error and move on.
Salon is the moron who thought that Turkey is an Arabic nation! That's right--check out what he wrote under in the discussion forum for the following mmfa page on December 8th, 2006: [link to mediamatters.org] I needed to enlighten him about that small detail. This guy is a joke who we would all do well to ignore until he receives an education (assuming he is capable of receivng one--a VERY big assumption).
But go to the mmfa page: "NY Times joined in crediting Wolf with ISG while ignoring op-ed citing "significant successes" on 12/8/2006 and read what the moron Solon wrote indicating that he thought Turkey was an Arabic nation.
[link to mediamatters.org]
I was wrong about Turkey. I was right about Hammurabi though. I notice in that thread we didnt have this hostility. You corrected me politly and I admitted my mistake. Perhaps I should have done the same even though you were ridiculing me for being right in this one. Perhaps I am becoming too quick to take offense. You used to be a very reasonable poster and perhaps I have been too rude, too quickly and have some responsibility for your hostility. I will look at that.
I did make that mistake. If I remember right I put Turkey in a list of Arabic nations to make a point that was not invalidated by the fact Turkey didnt belong there. If I remember right I also admitted I was wrong. I have been wrong before, I will be wrong again some day. I have enough of an education to know who the Know Nothings were so perhaps YOU are the one that needs educated assuming your inadequate brain can absorb any education. What YOU did was ridicule me for citing a fact that argued against your point when the fact I cited was abslolutly correct. You were wrong it happens to the best of it. Get over it. Just like I did when I was wrong.
but if you're going to look back, you might want to look at the post where you called me "stupid." I believe the first line was "Wow you really are stupid." I didn't write anything to provoke that. Generally speaking, personal attacks like that will tend to spiral into even more personal attacks and mudslinging.
Perhaps you should peruse the post I responded to, Am I mistaken that you made mention of me being part of the ignorami? THAT is why I started the post saying you really were stupid. EXACLY that. The plain fact is its obvious neither of us is stupid. The key to successful insults is some measure of credibility, none was evident in either of our posts. I assumed you would see my calling you stupid WAS in reference to the ignorami thing. However as I said I noticed in the link you posted how reasonably you corrected me before and perhaps I should been less condescending or something. I am not averse to hostility from those prone to it. Nor from those who start it but I dont want to be a knee jerk, jerk. Anyway I DID think you did something to provoke it or I wouldnt have gone there. Putting it all behind us is my preference. I LIKE to see the reasonable conservative posters here. I, before recently always thought you were one of them.
I did call you an ignoramus and that does appear to be what started all the mudslinging. I should not have resorted to that personal attack. I appologize for that and my subsequent personal attacks.
It takes a big person to say that. I mean that sincerely.
back to the foxhole to grab a new supply of mashed potato balls...
I dont think you owe me an appology. I came back swinging, we all get a little heated. I appreciate your reasoned response here. I am no angel. I throw mud with the best I just TRY to only do it in RESONSE to mud, but even then I am not always successful . The more we can talk about the issues and keep it in the arena of ideas the better I like it.
you are an uninteresting observer, indeed.
about the media's hackjob on Gore in 2000, check out The Daily Howler.
I was about to suggest The Daily Howler as, perhaps, the most thorough and factual dissection of the "Gore invented the internet" meme. For those who subscribe to the almost universally regurgitated media version in which he claimed to have "invented" the internet, ask yourself why this more sensational (though false) account is almost always advanced by the press, rather than simply reporting his real words.
During the 2000 election this "quote" was always forwarded as part of Gore's troubling pattern of deceit, but the dishonesty lay more with the media than the candidate. Others on this thread have already mentioned the Kahn and Cerf acknowledgement to Gore’s contribution, but how often do you hear the talking heads who parrot the “invented the internet” canard include this telling homage by people who have first-hand involvement in the invention of the internet? The answer is “rarely,” because doing so would give Gore some portion of the very real credit he deserved, rather than using him as the punch line to a cheap joke. If Gore's real quote was so dishonest, then why not report the quote verbatim and not the sexed-up version?
Along the same lines, for those who have questioned why MMFA is bringing up this “old subject,” it is because the false version of this story has hardened into conventional wisdom and is still being advanced as fact, as documented in this story. If people are going to continue to advance this false version, I’m glad that there are sites like MMFA, the Howler and others who will continue to provide the actual facts. If you don’t counter false stories when they crop up, then you are tacitly acquiescing to them as reality.
Al Gore had the intelligence, and intellectual curiosity to expand his knowledge of this new convergence of computer science and telco networking. Lucky for all of us, it was NOT telco lobbyists who wrote the legislation back then. The giant telco's now realize their error and are trying to kill net neutrality. Anybody who perpetuates this myth "Gore lied about inventing the internet" is trying to discredit one of the few politicians not bought and paid for by corporate bribes, aka "pac donations".
when it comes to smearing Al Gore, especially about 'inventing' the internet.
Here's a little story you might find interesting. After the 2000 election there was a panel discussion deconstructing the election, shown on C-SPAN. I watched it twice. It was mostly insipid, smarmy journalists who couldn't have cared less that the election was stolen in broad daylight by Katherine Harris and the Supreme Crooks, among many others, not the least of which was themselves, America's now proven-depraved corporate journalism mills. It was all a big game to these snarks. You can imagine, I'm sure.
The topic rolled around to how Al Gore saying he invented the internet really hurt him. Snickers and snides all around. They really got a kick out of their own little asides. This is what happens next: Newt Gingrich, who never uttered a non-partisan remark in his life - you remember him, the guy whose playbook was for Republicans to qualify everything Dem with "corrupt, depraved, indecent, stealing, etc etc", you know, with Republican character attributes, just as a matter of course - Newtie says 'Well, I guess I'm going to have to be the one to defend Al Gore here'.
Think about what that means in the context of what our journalism has become, when the most partisan of partisan right-wingers has to defend a decent and honest Democrat against mainstream media smears.
You could have heard a pin drop. Newt proceeds to explain that Al Gore did in fact, SINGLE-HANDEDLY among all of the Senators, who didn't really have any idea of what he was getting on about, research the experts, write the legislation for, go around to the Senators personally to get their support, introduce and shepard legislation through the Senate - to open the arcane military-academic ArpaNet for public and private accessibility.
And so the "information super-highway", the internet as we know it today, was born. I'm sure it would have happened at some time even without Gore, but maybe that would have been four years later, or six years later, or ten years later, like say now. Or maybe not. Maybe without an executive vision, the BBS universe would have slowly, over the course of a decade or two, worked its way into some form of ad-hoc interoperability. I think that's probably what would have happened, but who knows. We do know what did happen, though - an explosion of commerce and creativity that bought us where we are today at express speed. A great example of what government, in the hands of creative and motivated people, can do.
Al Gore deserves a HUGE amount of credit for what has become the single greatest boon to America in the past fifty years, and he most certainly had a right to point that out in a political race without getting sneered at by the media.
That is the point. Semantic games like the difference between 'creating' and 'inventing' and 'initiative in creating' just plays into their smearing, snickering hands. Nobody in their right minds, which now excludes the media as well as the right-wing, thought that Gore was pretending he did the C++ programming to "create" let alone "invent" the internet; in fact no one person or even group of people did that. Vint Cerf made that clear and everybody knows what Netscape did as well. Gore's credit was well within context of what he did from the position he was in. So rather than play their little smirking word games, just lay out how much he really did do to make the internet a reality for all of us.
That's just a microcosm of why I blame the media far more than Republicans for what has happened in the past ten to fifteen years to this country. For one thing, even when you can trace mud right back to a right-wing source, like say the Smearboater lies against Kerry, the only reason that stuff works is because the media spreads it. Once Republicans learned that they could trust the cowed, cowardly and craven 'mainstream' media to promote their garbage they knew they could just keep throwing more and more insane and disgusting crap out, knowing that it will be tried out and some of it will stick. Once they know they have mainstream journalism plying their lies, there is no reason not to get uglier and uglier. If they didn't have America's now fully-rightwing corporate journalism mills more than willing to propagate their lies, they wouldn't even get started in the first place.
The media has become the number-one consumer of right-wing ideological garbage, and the primary propagator of it to the general public. What they did to Al Gore regarding his stellar efforts in creating a public internet is just one example.
(Sorry for the long post)