CNN compared Gore to Jerry Lewis; Miles O'Brien said Gore "may be the Nutty Professor"
SUMMARY: On American Morning and CNN Newsroom, Veronica De La Cruz, Heidi Collins, Miles O'Brien, and Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Chris Horner all compared Al Gore to Jerry Lewis, with De La Cruz stating that "like Jerry Lewis in France and David Hasselhoff in Germany, Al Gore seems to be more popular in Europe than he is here in the United States." During a report on Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, which included a clip of Lewis in The Nutty Professor, O'Brien said, "[President] Bush's approval rating in Europe? About 12 to 15 percent. Al Gore may be the Nutty Professor, but whichever side of the ocean he is on, he is still faring better than the man who beat him seven years ago."
During segments on the December 10 editions of CNN's American Morning and CNN Newsroom, hosts Veronica De La Cruz and Heidi Collins, CNN chief environment correspondent Miles O'Brien, and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) senior fellow Chris Horner all compared former Vice President Al Gore to comedian Jerry Lewis, with De La Cruz stating that "like Jerry Lewis in France and David Hasselhoff in Germany, Al Gore seems to be more popular in Europe than he is here in the United States." A taped report on Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo that CNN aired on both American Morning and CNN Newsroom included a clip of Lewis in The Nutty Professor. O'Brien later said, "[President] Bush's approval rating in Europe? About 12 to 15 percent. Al Gore may be the Nutty Professor, but whichever side of the ocean he is on, he is still faring better than the man who beat him seven years ago." Introducing the same segment on the 9 a.m. ET hour of CNN Newsroom, Collins stated: "And our Miles O'Brien is in Norway, where he discovered the former vice president has something in common with comedian Jerry Lewis."
On CNN Newsroom, O'Brien also stated that "[y]ou have, especially in conservative circles, a lot of skepticism about the scientific process and science." O'Brien later added: "It's viewed as almost a political arm of the liberal side of things, whereas here in Europe, they see scientists as something from the ivory tower, something very different. Couple that with the fact that in the U.S., the oil and gas industry was -- has been successful over the years in muddying the waters on the science and, of course, you've got a former oil man in the Oval Office." However, O'Brien noted on October 12 -- the day it was announced that Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were to receive the Nobel Peace Prize -- that "there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on [global warming]."
Barnett R. Rubin, a senior fellow at New York University's Center on International Cooperation, first noted O'Brien's comments on his Daily Kos diary.
The taped portion of the segment prominently featured several quotes from Horner, whom O'Brien identified as a "global-warming skeptic." Horner said Gore "is clearly more popular there than here. But as you open, so is Jerry Lewis." Following Horner's quote, a clip of The Nutty Professor appeared, and then O'Brien asked, "Jerry Lewis? Could Al Gore share something in common with the Nutty Professor, loved mostly overseas?"
O'Brien did not mention that CEI has reportedly received funding from energy industry sources, including more than $2 million from the Exxon Mobil Corp. since 1998, as Media Matters has noted (here, here, here, and here). Media Matters has documented instances in which Collins and CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck have previously interviewed Horner without noting this fact. According to the blog Think Progress, Exxon Mobil no longer provides funding to CEI.
O'Brien later stated that "British pollster Peter Kellner also says Europeans are less likely to question science and scientists, and 90 percent of Europeans believe global warming is a clear and present danger. Americans are split down the middle."
After the segment aired on CNN Newsroom, Collins asked: "So, what's the deal? I mean, is it really fair to say that Europeans are that much more concerned about global warming than Americans?" O'Brien responded:
O'BRIEN: I think so, Heidi. I mean, I think what you have in the United States is kind of a perfect storm. You have, especially in conservative circles, a lot of skepticism about the scientific process and science.
It's viewed as almost a political arm of the liberal side of things, whereas here in Europe, they see scientists as something from the ivory tower, something very different. Couple that with the fact that in the U.S., the oil and gas industry was -- has been successful over the years in muddying the waters on the science and, of course, you've got a former oil man in the Oval Office.
All that kind of a perfect storm in the U.S., whereas here, none of those factors were in play. And as a result, there's -- Al Gore really, as he's here, is preaching to the choir.
However, on the day CNN reported that Gore and the IPCC had won the Nobel Peace Prize, O'Brien noted that "there isn't a scientific debate on [global warming] anymore." From the October 12 edition of CNN Newsroom:
O'BRIEN: You know, it's interesting. You [Collins] just said a few moments ago that some scientists say that there is a dispute over the link between manmade emissions of fossil fuels, of global warming fuels, global warming gases, and the link to climate changes. But the fact is that there are very few scientists that are seeing them. And if you look at the small handful that are still saying this, in many cases they're funded by the fossil fuel industry.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which shared the prize with Al Gore came out with a report in March of this year. This is 2,500 of the world's leading scientists, several hundred reviewers who synthesized all the known science out there. And here is what they said.
Temperature rise predicted between 3.25 and 7 degree Fahrenheit, sea level rise between 7 inches and 2 feet, just about. And now 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by human beings.
So there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on this, Heidi. This is about what to do about it. And that's where politics enters into this.
From the December 10 edition of CNN's American Morning:
DE LA CRUZ: Well, Al Gore will pick up his Nobel Peace Prize today. Gore will receive his award at a ceremony in Oslo, Norway, in the next hour. But like Jerry Lewis in France and David Hasselhoff in Germany, Al Gore seems to be more popular in Europe than he is here in the United States. Our Miles O'Brien joins us now from Oslo to try to explain why that is. Good morning to you, Miles.
O'BRIEN: Good morning, Veronica. I'm live at Oslo City Hall. It's right behind me there. In a little than an hour, Al Gore and the group of scientists which is responsible for studying climate change will accept the Nobel Peace Prize. It's interesting the peace prize is --
[begin video clip]
O'BRIEN: It's a long way from Oslo to Peoria, and Al Gore is sure playing better over there --
OLE DANBOLT MJOS (Nobel committee chairman): One of the world's leading environmentalist politicians.
O'BRIEN: -- than he is here.
HORNER: Al Gore is the embodiment of wretched excess.
O'BRIEN: That's global-warming skeptic Chris Horner. He is no fan of Gore, that's for sure.
HORNER: He clearly is more popular there than here. But as you open, so is Jerry Lewis.
LEWIS (portraying the Nutty Professor): I do have some very essential matters that I must take care of.
O'BRIEN: Jerry Lewis? Could Al Gore share something in common with the Nutty Professor, loved mostly overseas? Well, it all comes down to politics. And many Americans view the Nobel Prize through a political prism, so says CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider.
SCHNEIDER: There are a lot of sophisticated Americans, and certainly, a lot of people in Washington understand that there's a lot of politics in the Nobel Prize, particularly the Nobel Peace Prize.
O'BRIEN: In Europe, not so much.
KELLNER: Now, I can't think of an occasion where anybody has said that the Nobel committee's up to no good.
O'BRIEN: British pollster Peter Kellner also says Europeans are less likely to question science and scientists, and 90 percent of Europeans believe global warming is a clear and present danger. Americans are split down the middle. Oh, and speaking of that, there's one more factor to throw into the mix.
HORNER: It's those Northern Europeans doing what Northern European politicians want to do, and that is engage in anti-Bush symbolism.
O'BRIEN: Bush's approval rating in Europe, about 12 to 15 percent. Al Gore may be the Nutty Professor, but whichever side of the ocean he is on, he is still faring better than the man who beat him seven years ago.
[end video clip]
O'BRIEN: Back live now in Oslo, there was a kids' concert here just a little while ago. Here are some of the kids. They're having a good time here. Day off from school here on Nobel Prize day. Take a look at -- give me a little space here.
Take a look at some of the newspapers here. Of course, it's all Norwegian to me, but this is a story -- the only mildly critical story here says that Al Gore has just made a lot of money off of An Inconvenient Truth. Here's a whole piece about the security detail for the prince and princess getting some extra money.
This is a story about the Norwegian prime minister giving a lot of money for rainforest support. And then inside the paper, there's a huge excerpt of The Inconvenient Truth [sic], the book version. Check out this. Clearly, Al Gore, Veronica, has a receptive crowd here in Norway as he prepares to receive that Nobel Peace Prize. Veronica?
DE LA CRUZ: Clearly. It looks like you are having lots of fun as well. Miles O'Brien there in Oslo, Norway. Thanks.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of CNN Newsroom on December 10 :
COLLINS: So what do Al Gore and Jerry Lewis have in common?
Miles O'Brien makes the connection live from Oslo and the Nobel ceremonies.
[...]
COLLINS: Cancer on your radar. We'll tell you the story in just a couple of minutes.
Meanwhile, Al Gore on the world stage this morning. He accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo about an hour ago.
And our Miles O'Brien is in Norway, where he discovered the former vice president has something in common with comedian Jerry Lewis.
[...]
COLLINS: Miles O'Brien joining us now from the streets of Oslo, Norway. Miles, nice to see you.
So, what's the deal? I mean, is it really fair to say that Europeans are that much more concerned about global warming than Americans?
O'BRIEN: I think so, Heidi. I mean, I think what you have in the United States is kind of a perfect storm. You have, especially in conservative circles, a lot of skepticism about the scientific process and science.
It's viewed as almost a political arm of the liberal side of things, whereas here in Europe, they see scientists as something from the ivory tower, something very different. Couple that with the fact that in the U.S., the oil and gas industry was -- has been successful over the years in muddying the waters on the science and, of course, you've got a former oil man in the Oval Office.
All that kind of a perfect storm in the U.S., whereas here, none of those factors were in play. And as a result, there's -- Al Gore really, as he's here, is preaching to the choir.
COLLINS: Yeah, preaching to a choir who really wants to see him as much as possible. In fact, we've heard rock-star status.
What have you seen and heard about his reception there?
O'BRIEN: I haven't heard a single person offer a critical word of Al Gore. That's a far cry from what you'd get on the streets of New York City or Atlanta.
Take a look at these papers, for example.
This is what passes muster for criticism today in the newspapers. They're talking about Al Gore there making a lot of money off An Inconvenient Truth.
Most of the coverage is like this. This is just a huge excerpt inside this newspaper of the book version of An Inconvenient Truth. Here's how it goes. And, of course, the ubiquitous polar bear on the melting iceberg there.
So, the kind of coverage he's getting here, I'd put it in the fawning category. As I say, he's preaching to the choir, and he is the man of the moment. This city has embraced him in every way.
COLLINS: All right. CNN's Miles O'Brien reporting live for us this morning from Oslo, Norway. Thank you, Miles.
Al Gore is far from the Nutty Professor. He has done more for this world in the past 8 years than George Bush has done in 8 years. His contributions to mankind will be remembered forever. I love how they media really mocks this man.
I agree Sue.
I'm not a fan of Gore's but he's certainly popular with the Democrat/Liberals here in the U.S. & referring to him as "the nutty professor" was uncalled for.
Real unprofessional on CNN's part.
But it is what I am expecting of CNN , in the way they dealt with the Democratic debate, the plants at the Republican debate, the smear they did toward OReilly regarding the Harlem comments. They have really lost the way of the 1980s and early 90s. They are truly the worst of the 3 and the 3 are bad.
Sueeld
How the hell did CNN ever 'smear' O'Lielly over his 'Harlem remarks'? His astonishment at African Americans behaving like 'whites at an Italian restaurant in Long Island' clearly betrayed the bigotry that lurks just below the surface of his addled, vindictive mind. He is a confirmed sociopath, so it leaves me rather astounded to see you carrying his water in this manner.
Jeter,
I don't see your point. I was a great fan of Jerry Lewis in my youth. I can still remember going to see "The Nutty Professor" at the Saturday Matinee. (I know that dates me.)
I think the analogy works on two levels. One the relative popularity of Al Gore in Europe vis-a-vis the U.S. and Gore's professorial tone in his movie.
Although I've never been a Gore fan, I found the analogy to Jerry Lewis amusing and descriptive without being condescending.
I think the analogy works on two levels. One the relative popularity of Al Gore in Europe vis-a-vis the U.S...
Are you serious?
GORE GOT MORE VOTES THAN BUSH.
HIS POPULARITY HAS DONE NOTHING BUT INCREASE SINCE 2000.
HE'S MORE POPULAR HERE THAN EVER.
WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN DOING THE PAST 8 YEARS BESIDES LISTENING TO TALK RADIO?
Johnny,
My how time flies! I thought people had given up on the "Gore won" sour grapes, but you and Pearlene seem to relive it as if it were yesterday. :-)
Feel free to type in caps and believe Gore is more popular here than across the pond. It matters not to me. Personally I think he's full of hot air.
;-)
I didn't really think you'd want to be bothered by facts that contradict the drivel you hear on talk radio.
Johnny,
I am not particularly impressed by claims by you unsupported by links, which so far, is all I've read.
That being said. If it is simply your opinion that Gore is more popular here than Europe, that is fine with me. If you have facts to back up your assertion, that is even better. :-)
Frankly my dear, I don't give a hoot. :-)
And it's your opinion (with no sources) that Gore isn't as popular here at home.
Try to remember, you can't have it both ways. If Johnny needs to quote sources to back up his opinion, and you disagree , then you'll need to provide sources to back your opinion as well.
it's not sour grapes to say gore got more votes than bush. he did, half a million more
Obviously that is true but I have yet to figure out why that matters since that wasn't the winning criteria pre-election and still isn't.
if you will go back and check the conversation as it developed, the popularity of gore was being discussed and the statement was made that he got more votes than bush. that was called "sour grapes" talk and i pointed out it was not sour grapes, but a true statement. very logical progression to the discussion.
The original assertion was Gore isn't popular here in the USA.
That fallacy is simply refuted by pointing out the fact he got the most votes in the 2000 presidential election.
If that doesn't speak to popularity I don't know what does.
JOHNNY:
Correct. MORE AMERICANS wanted Al Gore to be president than wanted GW Bush to be president. Al Gore was more popular and more desired for the job by a MAJORITY of Americans voting.
Because of Technicalities including a partisan Supreme Court majority of one that was able to overrule the will of the people, GW Bush assumed the office. Then, as now, Al Gore was more respected BY the American People, and more trusted with power. Gore is smarter, better spoken, more accomplished, more experienced, and in every way a better choice for president than GW Bush. And yet, GW Bush was foisted on the American People, to start a war for no reason, to get rid of the surplus and replace it with burgeoning debt, to destroy the balance of power between the branches and to trash the Constitution's Bill of Rights ... to turn America into a despised nation known for torture, greed, and corruption.
For eight years, we have been subjected to the "leadership" of a man rejected by more people at the polls than his competition. The American People cannot be blamed for his horrible administration; the American People voted for the OTHER guy.
Republicans are HORRIBLE for America; every index for a better life for most American goes in the crapper, and ONLY the very wealthy make out.
Republicans spent 40 YEARS "in the wilderness," in the minority and barely relevant the last time they demonstrated what happens when they are in charge. People simply REJECT their leadership, when it is seen what they DO as opposed to what they SAY to get elected ("Compassionate Conservatives", anyone?).
Aside from the fact that Flordia was outright stolen by a Right-Wing court that thought the fairest way to have a democracy was to insure that ten's of thousand's of votes wouldn't be counted" (with 500 needed to win) because... well I don't know why, actually. I've read the opinions and to me, the court's explanation sounds like "It would be hard." Boo-frickin-hoo. Facsist bastards, making it easier for more facist bastards to sieze more power for themselves at the expense of our freedoms. Makes me sick.
I thought people had given up on the "Gore won" sour grapes
I guess having an election stolen stays with people, particularly given the atrocious job the thief did in the Oval.
We'll get over the stolen election when your sort gets over Bill Clinton.
You're making a promise I will abrogate: I will "get over" Bungle when some higher poewr deprives me of the ability to adjudge his (Bungle's) mere existence to have been a betrayal of this alleged humankind. I'm fairly sure those who have problems with Clinton will have rotted away in brimstone by then, but if not, we will have an ongoing contest in perpetual overtime.
Pearlene seem to relive it as if it were yesterday. :-)
Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away Now it look as though they're here to stay (At least until Jan. 2009) Oh, I believe in yesterday
Beautifully (and cleverly) put.
Gore did win. The Bushies with help from their ideologues on the Supreme Court stole that election; and we’ve had a karmic disturbance since then if you ask me.
May I join them? Gore clearly won the popular vote, won every (unofficial) state-wide recount in Florida, and should have been President other than for a gang of Repugnant hooligans at SCOTUS.
Same is true of Kerry, who won every aspect of the (unofficial) recount of Ohio, which will never be completed because the last 81% of the ballots were illegally destroyed by the Repugnant officials determined to hide the evidence.
My how time flies! I thought people had given up on the "Gore won" sour grapes, but you and Pearlene seem to relive it as if it were yesterday. :-)
"My how times flies" Ha, how long ago did Clinton get a "bj"? Did you say.......... but many seem to think it was yesterday. ;-)
Although I've never been a Gore fan, I found the analogy to Jerry Lewis amusing and descriptive without being condescending.
Please. He was compared to an over-the-top comic character, not to Jerry Lewis. And the comparison was not intended to be complimentary and you know it. Just stop apologizing for this kind of attack.
AA,
I saw The Nutty Professor when I was a kid, & I gotta admit I don't remember much about it other than Jerry Lewis played a kind of klutzy nerd. I can't even recall the plot, maybe I'll google it later. It's because of that memory of the character Lewis played that I thought it was kind of insulting to Gore, & I was a tad surprised CNN would describe Gore that way.
While it wouldn't shock me to find out Gore might be more popular in Europe, I still think he's pretty beloved stateside, at least by Liberal Democrats.
Let me refresh your memory - it was a morality play with Lewis taking a potion that transformed him into the ultra-cool Buddy Love.
In the end he discovered he could be perfectly happy being the nutty professor - and he still got the girl (Stella Stevens).
It is completely uncalled for, absolutely. And it's just plain idiotic. The first thought these people have when talking about someone popular in Europe is Jerry Lewis? Could we possibly get more negative spin on this? "Al Gore walks on water...like a bug!"
Let's put this on the other foot. If Sarkozy was popular here, can you imagine some French news channel comparing him to Jim Carrey? "Sarkozy is like Ace Ventura!", accompanied by a clip of Jim Carrey bending over and clutching his butt, saying "I'd like to ASS you a few questions!"
I can't even imagine the noise that would cause, but I would certainly understand it.
Hell hath no fury compared to a wingnut, about a liberal who, upon examination turns out to be correct.
Seems to work. I brought up Gore to some wignuts yesterday, the sneers were inplace before I finished my statement. If they were stapled to an ocean beach and slowly were covered by the raising ocean, with their last breath of air they'd be cursing Al as the cause of their trouble.
Yep - And they'll be saying things like..
"we didn't really know just how extensive and how dramatic it could be"
"in [2007] there was much confusion"
"we didn't know as much as we do now "
"we were acting more out of political correctness"
"There were studies that showed that. But there were other concerns being voiced..."
(Huckabee quotes regarding AIDS 2007)
Wickedly righteous.
That's the "Liberal Media" for ya!
O'Brien said, "[President] Bush's approval rating in Europe? About 12 to 15 percent. Al Gore may be the Nutty Professor, but whichever side of the ocean he is on, he is still faring better than the man who beat him seven years ago."
Miles I agree with almost everything EXCEPT that Junior did not beat Gore 7 years ago, the Supreme Court GAVE Junior the election.
Efin' A, Pearline.
The undeniably partisan Republican majority on the Supreme Court HANDED the election to Dubya', thereby deliberately overriding the will of the American people, & making Nazi business associate Prescot Bush's idiot grandson Commander in Thief.
Hey AA, I have a question for you.
I think it was in the Edwards haircut thread, but you said something to the effect of:
"Do you believe in this?'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'
That may explain why some people are against some things that are good for the country, but not necessarily for them."
Sorry, I paraphrased cuz I'm too lazy to go back to that thread. I was just wondering, what policies are there that are good for the country but not good for the individual? And to flip that around, what policies are bad for the country but good for the individual?I'm just asking, I just want to hear your thoughts on this.
DB,
Just to clarify, I don't think I ever said, "...bad for the country, but good for the individual". Like you, I am too lazy to go look it up. :-)If I remember correctly, I was responding to a question why some people vote against what is presumed to be in their economic interest. I think the presumption was that conservatives do this. I don't think I assigned relative goodness to this assertion.
I tried to point out that liberals sometimes do vote against their economic interest, using Buffet and Clinton as examples. Obviously they have publicly stated they should pay more in taxes. (However I don't think they voluntarily write a check to the IRS about what they think they should pay.) :-)
So my argument wasn't about good or bad for the country vis-a-vis the individual, but why people might vote against their particular economic interest. They do so because they feel it is better for the country.
One can argue whether paying more in taxes is good for the country and bad for the individual if one wants. Some liberals might feel it is good for both. Some conservatives think paying taxes is bad for the country and bad for the individual as taxes takes money out of the private sector. Obviously there are lots of people who fall in somewhere between the extremes.
I hope that answers your question. Thanks for asking.
Sorry AA, but I never said you said "bad for the country, good for the individual" I was merely following your thoughts to their logical conclusion.
So I went back and got exactly what you said "
Cannonball,
Do you agree or disagree with:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
That might explain why some people vote the way they do. They feel even though a particular law or tax policy might benefit them , it would be bad for the country.
After all, rich liberals, like Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, to name two, do the same by proposing to raise taxes on their income brackets."
So I guess what I'm trying to ask is, how is something that is good for the individual bad for the country? And why should we care about the country over our own self-interest?It seems to me that capitalism is exactly the opposite of putting country over yourself. Do you agree or no?
Gore can rest easy at night, sleeping with his Nobel Prize, and laugh at others who mock him. I know I would do that if I were him. Gore has been doing some great work throughout his entire career, not just in the last 8 years, but in the election of 2000, as it is well known, he was derided for promoting his own record of things that he did, taken way out of context, and quotes were made up about what he said.
Sure, he did some things I didn't agree with, how about the whole music lyrics thing with John Denver and the 2 Live Crew, not a fan of that whole Tipper movement, but that should ring in great with the right wingers, and yet, they still make fun of Gore.
I think Al Gore better serves the US doing what he is doing now, as opposed to being President, or VP for that matter. The man is doing good work, and will continue on down that path. I doubt we'll see any signs of this from W after he retires back to Crawford after he steps down as President.
I would hope he sleeps well at night in his 20,000 sq. ft. home and his $30,000 annual energy bill that includes his heated pool.
:-)
Facts, I want to hear facts! Exactly where did you get this information? Foot notes, references, sources....
Whillen you are asking far too much of AA to actually obtain some actual facts that are relevant to the thread. ;)
AA's purpose was to inform you of reasonable sounding information and engage you in discussion, it is your part to verify his statistics and information.
So, if I made some wild accusation about you, it would be your job to refute it?
You've been watching too much Glenn Beck.
Watching ANY Glenn Beck is too much Glenn Beck.
Any reference to Gore's house brings this response from me:
What does Bush's Texas ranch look like? Does it have a heated pool? Does he have an outrageous utility bill?
I personally don't care if Gore drives a tank to and from the office, leaves the lights on all the time, and just lets the hot water run freely because he likes the steam.
No the Bush house does not have a high energy bill. He bought one already built and setup for low energy use. Besides, he is not there much and doesn't need to use much electicity for reading.
Gore (I believe) inherited his house and it was an energy waster. They claim it has now been all done over with solar energy and such. Probably still higher than Bush as he uses it a lot more.
That Gore's house is some kind of giant energy sink is a right-wing talking point, drummed up to discredit him just after An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar. Some facts.
When it comes to global warming, the right wing can do nothing but try to shoot the messenger. Fortunately, more and more people are getting wise to their tactics.
Fortunately... judging from his microscopic ratings... watching Glen Drek is a lonely experience.
Normally, I don't equate ratings with quality & intelligence, but in Glen's case he fails on both counts.
Oh, and have I mentioned that he's a dumbf*ck's dumbf*ck?
you forgot to mention that (gasp!) he flies in his private jet while preaching all of us normal working folks to bike to work </hannity>
There is a profound difference between the homes of bush and of gore, and it is not that one contains a Drugged up kid. The fact is that bush is not the one whining about how we should conserve energy and save the environment with our homes and by not using jets or cars. It is Gore who harps over these Environut talking points. He is a hypocrite. He is also the darling of the common lib.
Nice cheap shots, dude. When do kids become adults and responsible for their own choices? Would you have made that judgment on the prior President Bush about a "drugged up kid?"
Ever read the snopes report on Gore's house? I think its great that Bush's place is energy efficient. Its too bad he does not encourage policies that would help as well.
Fin, your posts are so full of generalizations (Gore is the darling of the common lib) and I know you believe in eugenics so I should categorize sons of immigrants of Eastern European descent who have come to this country recently seem to be people who place others into identifiable, comfortable categories and do not have the capacity to process that individuals are different. It seems to me that if you know a buzzword about someone, you think you know them completely. Should I generalize all of that to people who have come from your part of the world at about the same time? Would that be a fair assessment in your mind of all recent Eastern European immigrants or no?
First of all, I am not a "dude", and speaking of cheap shots take a look at your post, especially the part about EU. Actually bush is pushing policies to protect the environment, perhaps not as fanatically as gore would, but you can't have it all.I read the previous posts and made the conjecture that gore is the darling of libs, this is not a generalization for i did say "common lib", meaning there are exceptions.
to "Believe" in eugenics is a bit of a strong word, rather i am interested in eugenics. Just trying to better the human race. My "white supremacism" I tend to base on facts and information rather than comforting generalities and buzzwords.
Sorry for the "dude" thing, Fin.
You didn't answer my question about Bush I. Since Gore's son was found with drugs and you brought in a cheap shot about that, can Bush I be blamed for "W's" DUI? I think not. W was an adult, much like Gore's son and made his own unfortunate choice. I think even great parents see children make unfortunate choices.
Your posts on race on the other thread were all generalizations. Yes the graduation rates of some races are not as high as others, but when you mentioned that the "average African American" couldn't understand or argue with you, that was a generalization, was it not?
I apologize if you don't believe in eugenics, but your statements led me to that conclusion. My fault if I misunderstood.
As for Bush pushing for environmental causes, why were pollution standards lowered so dramatically upon his entry into office?
Well i think that a person's offspring mirror the person and their values. the fact is that getting a DUI is not as serious as possession of multiple drugs. Was the inconvenient son high when they caught him? generalizations are just that, generalities. there is no need for the negative connotations you ascribe to the word, a group's majority is essentially its representatives. I do realize that not everyone in a particular race is what i call them, but i look at the general performance. I have come to the conclusion that certain races are on average intellectually superior to other races. this does not mean that the race lacks entirely in intellectuals, it just means that there are not as many.
So, if the rumors are true about W being a cokehead, the Bushes are just the same as Gores. And the family of the Colorado church shooter who shot up the two churches aren't really religious like they claim to be, right? You must hate Rush Limbaugh then since he is an addict as well. How can you trust any of the Republican candidates since they have not stayed with one woman? Your generalizations will get you to the point where you "know" everyone before you meet them. How sad.
Generalizations are terrible, you objected to someone else's, but somehow, yours are ok, right?
I am guessing, since you think its ok to generalize that your parents are stereotypical people as well as well, right? They classify people based on limited experience and put them into groups that make you and them feel superior without basis.
By the way, if you don't consider yourself a racist, please tell me what a racist is.
A A,
You've just gotta get your facts straight! Check out Snopes.com about Al's house.
I suspect you're making reference too to the hit piece currently circulated on the web, by the right-wing-nuts, comparing his house to Bush's. Problem is, any fool knows that Laura and the architect talked W into making ONE OF his homes green and more power to him! That aside, I won't even bother to recall what the man has done to the damn planet from Afghanistan to Iraq and Kyoto - in the name of profits for his family and their cronies in the oil bidness! Having one of 4 or 5 of his houses, green hardly makes him a competitor with Al Gore for saviour of the damn planet!
Think about it then compare the two men and what they've done for the planet lately!!
Meanwhile, check out the facts about the Gore house at Snopes. BTW, at Snopes they don't mention or seem to be aware of, the environmentla value of preserving a well built old home which just happens to be a family and community heirloom, while adapting and retrofitting it to be a lot greener - AND WHILE using it as home AND business offices.
Nice as the modern Bush home is - and Snopes doesn't deal with the comparison - preserving this old house and modernizing it makes much more sense than tearing it down and rebuilding - or dumping it and letting someone else bastardize it, just to walk away from the 'stigma'. All in all what you're referencing is an unfair, lying, undocumented hit-piece! Get your facts straight or get over it!
Everyone loves big old AL. With that grin and those rosie cheeks whats not to love. As far a global warming goes???? Before comming to a conclusion one needs to make a few flights across the US and get a good look at the VERY small specks of land enhabited by humans. The vastness of land where there are no humans in untold 1000's of square miles is breath taking. Then to take into consideration 3/4's of the earth is covered by water. Humans warming the planet is akin to a camp fire warming the forest.
Well, except that it's about lingering effects of gases and pollution in the atmosphere, not about what's being put out at any one given moment. If you ever drive through an industrial area, and think about that pollution staying in the atmosphere, it might make a little more sense to you.
You may think global warming is nothing to worry about now, but just wait till everyone in China is driving a car.
Billyjoejimbob aka Justicetruth let me give you a hearty welcome back under your new name.
The "We are so little and the world is so big" argument only passes muster among 4th grade elementary school thinkers and those who know nothing about the IPCC report. The tone of your comment reveals it as a mindless throwaway.
The amount of CFC's released by refrigerants and propellant cans was REALLY tiny, yet it was burning off our ozone layer. We recognized it and fixed the problems. In all the vast area of the earth you referenced consider how FEW in that area have hair spray or air conditioning. The "we are tiny"argument is bogus.
The argument is even wrong at the 4th grade level. We aren't warming the earth with our little fires. We are pouring fuel (CO2) on a heat source. Billions of metric tons of it.
Good hell Billy!!
You actually think the problem at hand has anything to do with having 'space'?
Do you think we'll survive and live sustainably until we don't have enough space to stand? Have you been living in a cave? Instead of spewing junk here, go read a book - the internet is a good resource- learn something!
However, you do raise a serious question:
Will humankind die-off first from global warming and air pollution, from embarrassment at the folly of their fellows or will they just die laughing at fools like you?
Afraid you have a 'Reagan-brain' - just enough cells to have a few, stupid opinions, not one, spare brain cell for learning or logic!
Find me one "Global Warming Skeptic" who doesn't have something to gain by encouraging a life as usual attitude? Hell, some pundits, like Glenn Beck, have even cashed in on it by writing a book ridiculing Gore. This selfish "I've got mine and I need to keep it" or "I see money to be made off this issue" attitude - with no concern for the future of the world (what's more, their children) - is just so confusing to me. This is not an issue which I'd want to be on the wrong side.
I only hope that these idiots are still around when the bottom falls out - so that maybe we can use them and their books as fuel!
gore, of course, gains nothing for stirring up fears, right? he doesn't own stock in the carbon credit corporation, does he?
you might want to get ahold of 'ol al' and let him know that limbaugh bet his entire fortune against gore's that what gore said would occur by the year 2030 will not. if he's so sure of the science he should jump all over that.
while you are trying to get through to him, why don't you check which president put solar panels on the white house....
Thank you for confirming my point. Scumbags like Limbaugh and Beck are conjuring up ways that then can cash in on the issue.
Al Gore did not wake up one morning and decide, "Hey, I bet I could make millions off of this." He has been educating himslef, analysing the history, keeping up on the research, and fighting to educate the rest of the world on this issue for decades now. His intellect, morallity, and fresightedness have legitimately earned him The Noble Peace Prize and his political rivals despise him for it. To him it was not a financial issue like it is for most anyone who trashes him. To make him out to be some kind of oportunist is like saying Thomas Edison had no right to any business ventures involving electricity.
My favorite analogy... Rebulicans = The Catholic Church, Al Gore = Christopher Columbus, Issue? The world is flat.
Actually, Al Gore woke up one morning screaming "the sky is falling!". And so began the illustrious career of Gore Fearmongering Inc.
Morality? Farsightedness? how dare you ascribe morality to someone while whenever the issue is brought up about the morality of re pubs or conservatives all of the liberals immediately get worked up. I'll give you a Farsighted piece of writing, and it definitely is not the script of Inconvenient Truth.
Gore deserved the peace prize about as much as Hillary deserves to be president. And she absolutely does not deserve to be pres. You compare gore to Edison? now that is straight lunacy. Gore's "science" is questionable at best. He provides "facts" he pulled out of god knows where.
Fin,
Complaints about fear mongering about someone who is so threatened by people coming to this country who don't look like him is laughable. I would love to see your farsighted book, please post it.
My view what they are do not make me a fear monger. This book I referred to is called The Bible. I do not want to post it for it is a hefty tome.
I am familiar with it Fin, thanks. It calls for us to treat people well and respect each other, right?
I think it would be unfamiliar with your types of stereotyping as well.
What the bible teaches is not incompatable with the existence of facts and the opinions people make in light of those facts.
No, but the Bible objects to judging people, and condemning them, does it not?
Well i am not a perfect individual and far from a perfect christian, i think that it is nigh impossible to not judge, for instance, I judge Gore as a fear monger, you judge bush (and others) as drug addicts, I judge the levels of performance between races and you probably have judged a burger eating competition.
Who appointed you the judge of the races??? Sick.
I am self appointed, as are you the self appointed judge of conservatives and/or repubs.
And for the record, I never said Bush was a drug addict. I just asked you if you would have judged his parents the same way you would have judged the Gores.
Rush Limbaugh went to rehab for his addiction to drugs, correct? Being a drug addict does not make you a bad person. It means that you have a problem. I sincerely hope he got the help he needed and I hope he has compassion for those in the same situation.
I also sincerely hope that you learn to see people as individuals and not by some stereotype you have developed.
And I hope, as an Eastern European, you would figure out what my screenname actually is.
The way you spread your views on "what they do" certainly makes you seem afraid and spreading it in public makes you a fearmonger.
How can you be a supporter of this administration and call ANYONE a fearmonger as an insult?
I am not a supporter of this administration, I think that it has made important mistakes.
Oh, so you take your cues from a few men who wrote about the life of Jesus second hand, then to have those writings parsed down to four books that have been distorted and twisted to fit the agenda of the men at the Council of Nicea? and then further twisted through translation and personal agendas until Jesus' original words have been completely taken out of context?
I know not to trust you, based on that.
A republican is lecturing us on the profitability of stirring up fears? Surely, this was unintentional irony, right? Are you telling me that Bush, Cheney, etc. have not profited from the "fears" they have sparked? What about invading Iraq for fear of the "mushroom cloud?" What about their power grabs with the budget (fund this budget or the troops will be left out with no supplies)? What about their FISA violations cloaked in the guise of listening to terrorists, etc?
Please don't lecture Gore or anyone else on the benefits of profiting from fear.
And, by the way, Carter put up the solar panels. Think how much less oil dependent our country might be if we did invest in solar....
actually the carter panels were removed by reagan to fix a leak. they were supposed to be replaced, but they were replaced in 2002. i guess you missed the press conference, wait, that's because there wasn't one- unlike the carter panels.
By LISA GUERNSEYPublished: February 27, 2003Since September, a grid of 167 solar panels on the roof of a maintenance shed has been delivering electricity to the White House grounds. Another solar installation has been helping to provide hot water. Yet another has been keeping the water warm in the presidential pool. -nyt
you'd think gore could have reminded clinton to put those back up during the 8 years they had there, maybe clinton asked not to be disturbed while he was in the oval office.
you're probably right that gore only has the noblest of intentions. no need to put his money where his mouth is...
Good for W on putting them up, I commend him for that. Not going to address the irony of you stating that Gore is using fear to profit when that has been the staple of W and crew?
First of all, I am not a republican mostly for all of the reasons that you posted. It is true that the repubs have been saturating us with their constant fear mongering but this does not mean that it is okay for others to join in. I would not stop to criticize someone just because of any party allegiances I may have.
So, criticize your own party then. Clean up your own mess before you accuse someone else of the same thing!
Don't take cheap shots at the opposition while supporting people who deal in the same tactics, come on!
I am NOT a republican! I do not know how much I need to stress this until you understand, I am an independent. My hands are clean, I do not wear the burdensome mantle of republicans, I am an oppurtunist. Whichever party gives me the best deal I shall back.
So, who have you voted for in the last few elections then?
They just can't help themselves, can they?
They just can't resist attacking ol' Al.
And in doing so they say 'we despise the american Association for the Advsncement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and all the other scientific organizations! They're a bunch of goofy eggheads! Haw haw haw!"
Laugh it up, guys. You're beginning to sound like the drunks at the end of the bar.
Laugh it up, guys. You're beginning to sound like the drunks at the end of the bar.
They ARE the drunks at the end of the bar.
Quit insulting those drunks at the end of the bar...One of them may eventually be President of this here United States of America. At least those drunks know who they are. Give them some credit..it takes awhile to become one of those thar drunks.
You do realize that just by calling themselves a "scientific organization" these groups are still far from being reputable. It amazes me how eagerly you swallow the nonsense gore is shovelling down your gullet.
wow...further evidence that 24-hour news is contributing to the decline of the USA...comparing the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the real winner of the 2000 election to Jerry Lewis...what will the talented Miles O'Brien think of next? CNN is quickly becoming a bigger joke than FOX, and that is truly SAD! Even Miles the genius points out the obvious that conservatives in this country simply don't believe in science, which makes them the principal barrier of progress in this country.
which science? the junk 'science' in inconvenient truth? (which can be shown to britian youngsters only after the glaring inaccuracies have been pointed out.) or the actual scientists who singned on to not supporting kyoto... et al:
'We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist, 11/05/98
before we all get covered up by water could one of you (the highly evolved) explain to us lowly laymen how man-made global warming is helping to melt the ice caps on mars? was it that rover we sent up? if so we are most certainly a stain upon the universe.
Excellent Paleocon, i was incredulous after reading all of the Gore propaganda everyone has been posting, I guess that they still see Gore as the untarnished bastion of liberalism. It is a shame how people could believe the utter drivel and nonsense that is spewed by the propaGore machine. It amazes me that there are imbeciles who agree with his outragous ideas, and they are just ideas, Gore has got a long stretch till fact he doth utter.
Fin,
Take the challenge you gave to those asking AA for facts. The posters here were making discussion, refute it.
OK paleocon and finarfin - Let’s for one minute pretend nothing that man has ever done has contributed to global (or Mars) warming. Are you still going to deny that it even exists? It seems that your Mars point just adds to the argument that things really are heating up.So now the question is, what do we do about it? The answer is to ridicule and discourage all science and technology that is working day and night to come up with a solution? To just go on with life as usual - raping the earth of its limited natural recourses as if there really is no end?
You live in a dream world where all that matters is today. I’d really love to hear your future environmental plans and visions?
Just because I may oppose Gore's global warming theory does not mean that I am entirely devoid of compassion for the environment. Do not assume this, it is a blatant generalization, something i thought that libs where incapable of. About NATURAL global warming, there is really nothing we can do without starving the plants of CO2, the earth goes through natural cycles and we will just have to live with it. About pollution and the like, do not assume that just because I am against the idiocy of Gore's theory of climate change does not mean that I think we should continue to pollute the beauty of earth, we should definitely tighten measures especially on developing countries, but we should not cripple ourselves and others with idiocy such as the Kyoto protocol. I strive for cleaner air and a pure earth but this does not mean I would sacrifice civilization in the process. i think that we are capable of both cleaning the environment and advancing human civilization.
"Do not assume this, it is a blatant generalization."
Fin, with all your posts containing the same "generalist" theories on race, libs etc, please don't tell people not to generalize! You are more guilty of this than anyone on any of these boards.
welcome to fin's philosophy and analysis of language. Today we shall be analyzing the difference between just generalization and unjust (for lack of a better term) generalization.
Just generalization is a generalization that represents the majority of the subject being generalized. for example, it is well documented that most people with AIDS got it from unprotected intercourse with someone who had AIDS. There are exceptions but they are not the majority. Thus it is a just generalization to say that people with aids got it from having unprotected (indiscriminate) intercourse with someone who had the disease.
An unjust generalization is one that does not or probably does not represent a sufficient majority of the subject of generalization. For example, if one makes the generalization that All eastern Europeans are racist, that is simply not the majority representation. therefore it is not a true generalization.
With generalization one must tread softly, yet the word should not have such negative connotations. this is why i differentiate between Just and unjust generalization.
YOUR Generalizations make people less than human and degrade entire races through narrow experiences with a certain few.
And no, I do not generalize Eastern Europeans as racist, I was just trying to show you what you do. I don't group people into categories, Fin. Each one is different.
i have never claimed that there is not global warming... i would be more apt to call it a global warming trend. as ff already pointed out, these are called 'cycles' which the earth, the sun and most likely the entire universe has been experiencing since the beginning of what we call 'time'.
So now the question is, what do we do about it?
about global warming? nothing. we would do better to find a way to stop the inevitablity of being struck by a large meteor sometime in the near future.
I’d really love to hear your future environmental plans and visions?
i think that cutting down on pollutin is a fantastic idea, not for to stop your fictional man-made warming, but for our lungs sake and because keeping the earth clean is the right thing to do. getting rid of our foriegn dependence on oil is a wonderful idea. lets open up more options. nuclear energyhas become much more safe and clean than it was in the 70's, let's do some research on safe disposal or recycling of spent rods. i've heard that cattle manure is replacing coal in some areas in texas, that would be good to look into. while we are waiting to come up with these new technologies we could be completley energy independant by using the recources that we have just in alaska. it's not called raping the earth, it's called harvesting what the earth has provided. we can refine the oil cleaner and more environmentally friendly than most of the 2nd and 3rd world countries are doing it now. and it would be temporary until we come up with a better source of fuel. i think we should take care of the earth like a conservationist rather than a preservationist. what i mean by those terms is that a preservationist approaches the problem with a hands-off mentality. a conservationist wisely uses what need t be used and preserves what needs to be preserved. a pre... would look at a garden and not remove the weeds because that is it's natural state, a con... will weed the garden so that the earth can bear fruit in it's season, but will let the weeds grow in the wooded area.
we are an inventive and resourceful country. we can make the world a better place without scaring little children with cartoons about drowning polar bears. that approach is disgraceful.
"Hey Layyy-de!" This was a remake of the Jeyckle and Hyde (sp) story. Doubt Al Gore fits the nerdy professor, or the ultra suave alter ego. As much as I repsect Gore, this comparison is unfair to Jerry Lewis.
LOL! Are you from France?