Memo to Politico: Al Gore never claimed he "invented the Internet"
SUMMARY: Politico's Ben Smith and Craig Gordon repeated the falsehood that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet, writing, "Al Gore took a lot of grief for saying he invented the Internet, but Google's Vinton Cerf can come as close as anyone alive to making that boast with a straight face." In fact, Gore did not claim that he "invented the Internet." Rather, in a 1999 interview on CNN, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
In a December 5 article, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith and White House editor Craig Gordon repeated the long-debunked falsehood that former Vice President Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. Discussing President-elect Barack Obama's possible choices for "Chief Technology Officer" in his administration, Gordon and Smith wrote: "Al Gore took a lot of grief for saying he invented the Internet, but Google's Vinton Cerf can come as close as anyone alive to making that boast with a straight face. And he might be in line for this job." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, Gore did not claim that he "invented the Internet." Rather, during the March 9, 1999, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that gave rise to the myth, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Indeed, Wolf Blitzer set the record straight on the July 6 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, stating that Gore "never said, 'I invented the Internet.' "
Cerf himself has previously defended the accuracy of Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." In an article from September 2000, which was published on the Politech website, Cerf and Robert Kahn wrote
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening.
Cerf and Kahn also wrote: "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development. ... No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time."
As Media Matters documented, Politico reporter Ken Vogel also asserted in May that "some say" Gore claimed "that he invented the internet."
From Smith and Gordon's December 5 Politico article:
Chief Technology Officer
The list: Vinton Cerf, Google's "chief Internet evangelist;" Julius Genachowski, a former FCC counsel who helped set up Obama's campaign, and Symantec chief John W. Thompson.
Al Gore took a lot of grief for saying he invented the Internet, but Google's Vinton Cerf can come as close as anyone alive to making that boast with a straight face. And he might be in line for this job.
One of the many lies that have been spread, and spread, and spread some more, and proven to be incorrect every single time. It's one of those lies that is so ingrained in our psyches, that it will probably be there forever. It's a punchline now, even though it's wrong. To me, it's sort of like the people who laugh about the woman who spilled coffee on herself at McDonald's and then sued them for suffering extreme burns because of it. They always say, "It's coffee. What did she expect?" It's just one of those things that people believe, day in, and day out, like the Gore statement.
They'll never report specious intel lies that led us into an expensive (in lives, capital and world reputation) BushieCo war but they will trot out the internet lie.
You are correct, but Mr. Gore should have spoke more carefully. (He is a politicina after all!) He tried to boil his truly monumental contribution down to a soundbite and it came out very awkwardly.
Someone awhile back posted on MMFA (about this very issue) that "created" doesn't mean "invented." If my kid is hungry I can "create" a PB & J sandwich for him. That doesn't mean I invented the PB & J sandwich.
But no one really talks like that. And in a single unfortunate word choice, he managed to grossly overstate his role, which in reality was truly substantial.
It's a shame too. The IT "bubble" helped the Clinton economy, and so many RW'ers want to credit it, rather than the Democratic administration for the economic success we had in the 1990's. 1st - I say "bubble" because it's not like the internet exactly went away - eBay, Amazon, Google - a few of those co's did ratehr well, and the internet continues to spur business growth every day. But 2nd - The whole thing never would have happened the way it did w/o Al Gore's help! We'd have had somethign like it everntually, but it would have been corprate owned and controlled, with content limited to each comanies own network or some such thing. And very little cross-compatability. The "market" (meaning "corporate interest") would never had allowed this fantastic resource to grow the way it did on it's own.
Mister Gore deserves a ton of credit for his vision of what was possible. Instead, one poorly placed word turned his role in nurturing along the greatest inovation since the industrial revolution into a running gag. It's a damn shame.
I'm still waiting for someone to provide a better choice of words on his behalf.
I really don't get the assertion that "no one really talks like that". People don't understand the difference between "create" and "invent" when they speak? If there's no word that is obviously more suitable to the circumstances, then of course people would use that word.
How about "Took the initiative in sponsoring legislation that led to the creation of the internet."
or "Took the initiative in sponsoring legislation that gave funding to research which led to the creation of the internet."
or "Took the initiative in sponsoring legislation that isured that the internet would come about in a free and unfettered way."
The key is "sposored legislation that..." The Senate doesn't really "create" anything.
Now I'm not a speechwirter, nor a politician (speaker). He is, and he hired one. And they should have edited the statement better. It was awkward and prone to misinterpretation.
It was not said during a scripted speech, it was said during an interview.
Fair enough, but I'll stand by the opinon that any of the statements I made might have made the difference, and gotten him elected president... given how close things were and how much this joke kept getting repeated. (And that it laid the foundation for the image of Gore as a lying, serial exagerator.)
actually the media laid that foundation. they had the opportunity, time after time, to actually quote what he said, or note the context of what he said, and they didn't. and by time after time, i mean all the various little lies he was accused of. al says love story was written about him? what a liar. except erich segal said that gore was the basis for the character. when you are a major politician, every word you say is subject to scrutiny. how about this for what should have been a story then:
"al gore claims he created the internet. sound crazy? well, maybe not. during his time in the senate, gore proposed a lot of bills that provided funding to get the internet developed into a working entity."
that was the truth, and that was what the media owed the public to point out and they didn't. instead they repeated the republican talking points.
Exactly.
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
He specifically said it was in Congress, so "sponsoring legislation" is redundant. If you really try to protect yourself from people taking things out of context and substituting words, your sentences will run 300 words each. If people want to be that dishonest, then they can edit out "sponsoring legislation" as well, anyway.
It would not be redundant, he should have said "sponsoring legislation", he did not. 10 years later the whine continues....
Why is "sponsoring legislation" needed on top of "during my service in Congress"?
"during my service in Congress" is nothing more than a obvious reitertation of their employment, it says nothing more. Sponsoring legislation goes to their duties while there.
If you take the iniative while in Congress, you're sponsoring legislation. That's what the initiative would be.
Fine, then he should have said so, instead of saying "initiative in creating", where he could have avoided 10 long years of this, and said "initiative in sponsoring legislation".
He said it was during his service of Congress. That means legislation, unless (again) we're supposed to believe that the part about Congress was meaningless and he invented it in his basement. Context is everything.
What part of this are you not comprehending?
You and Al can whine for another 10 years on the mistreatment he has received in the media because of his phrase, the fact is he brought it upon himself by not being humble and accurate in what he said. That is a fact. Politicians who complain about being misquoted don't have to go the extent you're going too to clarify something if there was no confusion to begin with. So stop being a baby and whining about the media, again. Take responsibility and say Al should have been clearer and move on. To bellyache about it over and over, as you and MMFA do, is pathetic.
Nonsense, if I take your words out of context and twist your clear meaning, you would agree that your clarification proved you did something wrong? Anyone can create confusion if they really want to.
Show me how it wasn't accurate or clear. Stating it's a "fact" doesn't cut it.
His use of the word "create" is where the confusion lies. And it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to take from that, "invent". Nobody twisted anything, that is ridiculous. The two words can be used interchangeably in many instances, and to have to explain it like what has been done for teeeeeeennnnnnnn long years only reinforces the point of just how closely the two words' meanings are.
No, because context is everything. Your words. You can't come in here today and claim that some single solitary word justifies mockery when the context shows what he said to be accurate and reasonable.
And someone could misrepresent what you said for ten long years as well. It doesn't prove a damn thing if you corrected them every time.
Mockery, how pitiful. He said create, and it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make based on the fact that create and invent are synonymous. Stop propping up Al Gore as some victim, any "mockery" he gets, he "created", or "invented".
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how such an assumption is reasonable, taking context into account.
I couldn't care less what you're waiting for. Context is important, and in this case it's perfectly reasonable to substitute invent for create. Just because you don't accept my explanation is irrelevant. If you think I wait for your approval, keep waiting.
Franklin Roosevelt created the Manhattan Project by initiating it and funding it. He didn't invent the atomic bomb. The bomb, like the Internet, was a collaboration of a slew of people.
What explanation have you provided, specifically?
Read the hundreds of posts I have posted today. If you can't understand my point, then just say you disagree. Your lawyerly cross-examination is futile.
I understand your point. What you haven't provided is an explanation of how your point makes sense.
Well, considering you can never accept a disagreement I am not surprised that you simply say it makes no sense. This may be news to you, but there is often more than one way, or one perspective, to look at things - I accept your defense of Al Gore in this instance, I don't agree with you but I don't need to in order to accept our disagreement. I would advise you to work on that, you have yet to grasp it on these boards. I have tried.
I simply say it makes no sense because all you've done is simply say it's reasonable to infer "I invented the internet" from what Gore actually said. If you want to talk about baseless assertions, then you'll have to fix the ones you've made.
You accept my defense of Gore? I thought it was whining, and evidence that Gore actually made some sort of gaffe. Interesting definition of "accept" you have there.
It is whining, but I have to come to accept it, from you.
you say gore was not being "humble and accurate" in what he said. that's simply your opinion and nothing more. what he did say was that he took the initiative in creating it, during his service in congress. all that has to be done is simply quote what gore said, the complete sentence, not some fragment, and not something that you insist is equal to what he said, and then it's much clearer as to what he was actually saying. the term "invent" implies that he personally oversaw the wiring of every home. that clearly was not what he did or what he meant. as for why he needs to be "humble", why would he do that? politicians live by their accomplishments. it's rather silly he should be humble about it.
as for the "defense of gore", vinton cerf, who is clearly acknowledged by politico as having a strong case to actually "inventing" it, has defended gore several times. he says he knows what gore was talking about and that gore was far ahead of others on the subject. clearly, this is something that has been twisted over the years to make gore look foolish, when it was actually a very positive achievment. claiming that this misrepresentation having gone on for 10 years proves something is simply false. cerf has defended gore's statement. do you have an argument with him?
He was accurate. The Internet was funded by Congress long before 99.99% of populatin knew it existed. He didn't "invent" it, for sure. Of course, he never said he did. However, funding is part of creating. An executive producer on a movie who puts up money is part of the creation process, for without his involvement, the movie would not be made.
Just look at how you have to explain it, with every little analogy and caveat you can find. That only proves my point. If he had been accurate, there wouldn't be 10 years of misinterpretation and confusion by what he said.
You are wrong. If people hadn't changed "create" into "invent", then there would be no issue.
I only use analogies with you because you are too dense to understand some things at face value. It's apparent your are even too dense for analogies.
I don't care if they changed it or not, go with create then, I don't care. It still assumes he created something when in fact he did not. Your analogy was worthless, and your explanations only prove my point Scotty. Thanks
He did create it. Look at your own list of synonyms you posted below. Funding is part of the creation process.
Not even an idiot would assume Al Gore meant he "funded" the internet, what a ridiculous example.
Only an idiot would think he meant that he "invented" the Internet, especially considering that nobody invented it. It's a collection of interrelated technologies and infrastructure invented by a multitude of people.
Tell that to the ego-inflated Al Gore who said he created it.
He did create it as has been demonstrated over and over again. If I were him, I would be proud of that accomplishment too, considering how shortsighted most ordinary politicians are.
Inventions happen as a result of thought impulses entering the creative imagination from a non exitent "place" called infininate intelligence and then acting pn those impulses to create. Henry Ford is credited with inventing the assembly line, I am sure he utilized his managers (an integral part in the invention) in implementing this process. Thomas Edison tried 1000's of combinations of filiments and metals before "inventing" a filament for the incanescent light bulb. Ideas are transformed into inventions many times thru collaberation. No man is an island and lifes experiences are a determining factor in an "invention" along with the utilization of the creative imaginatio. I "invented" the product I make and sell however, A woman told me to make some. Over several months I finalized design standards and production protocals. Again this was a collaberation. If others were not involved in the initial product idea, I would have never thought of it myself. My brother and other employees of mine were responsible with the production in mass. Gore never said he invented the internet. He was involved in the development (thru legislation), Again, inventions are a result of ideas which are flases entering the creative imagination eminating from infinite intelligence. All that has been invented and everything that will be invented are stored in infinite intelligence. Our minds are conduits. I am quite sure this clarifies this matter and we can all move on to more important things like buy American and will Indi get into the playoffs.
Only ignorant, small minded people would ever say Gore invented the internet. Which is why right wing non functioning frontal lobe morons like newter and inshannity say it. These people are closed minded partisan numbskulls and have no idea about what they are talking about. They are nuance challenged and are sick and dangerous individuals and not worthy of paying attention to except for a good laugh
He didn't say he "created" it either. You're changing the entire sentence now.
I love it when you parse words and now shift the argument to what "took the initiative" means. Weak.
Unfortunately, we have to explain the obvious to you Tommy. This has always been the case since you showed up here so many years ago. That Barab takes on this futile education process can only be seen as a labor of love.
Context is everything. It's part of what was said, but I'm shifting the argument to point it out? Come on, now.
The fact that you keep repeating "context is everything" does nothing to bolster anything, nobody is disagreeing with that, at least not me. Of course it's in context. When you say create, it is perfectly reasonable to assume invent, yes, in this context
Make up your mind. Is discussing part of the very same sentence "shifting the argument" and "parsing", or does the context matter?
If Gore had said "I created the internet", then you might have a point. When he specifies that he took the initiative in Congress, that does not translate to "I invented the internet".
Maybe so, maybe not. That is the whole point of this whole thing. His statement leaves the door open for a misunderstanding and possible misinterpretation. Had he been clear and specific this would not be debated 10 years later. Typical politician, which is why I have zero sympathy when they rope themselves into something like this. Especially during a campaign season when they want support and / or votes. I allow them no latitude, they know exactly what they are doing.
You still haven't shown how he wasn't clear and specific, in context.
Really? So every single person over the last 10 years who has "misinterpreted" Gore's claim is all screwed up and just out to get poor Al by baselessly asserting something that he was very clear and specific about all those years ago? Is that what you're saying? Whatever.
I'm saying they're either partisan, or lazy and accepting the phony interpretation of what he said. If you think that our media is above that, then that's your belief.
Well of course, because anyone who would dare question Al Gore is "either partisan, or lazy", but certainly not his defenders here. Do you know how ridiculous that statement of yours is?
Strawman. Nobody said that Gore couldn't be questioned or criticized. The point here is that this criticism is unfair.
Reading is fundamental.
Shift. Dodge. You said, in response, that anyone who questions this about Al Gore is either partisan or lazy or accepting the "phony interpretation", which is the same thing as lazy. That is what you said. Now you call it a strawman. Unbeliveable.
Shameless liar. You didn't say "who questions this about". You said "Well of course, because anyone who would dare question Al Gore is "either partisan, or lazy", but certainly not his defenders here. Do you know how ridiculous that statement of yours is?" That is a strawman, because you are speaking generally, not about this specific quote. You should develop some sense of control over what you say.
Yes, anyone who asserts that Gor is saying "I invented the internet" is either partisan or lazy. The reason for this is that the interpretation does not match what was actually said, and you have not produced an argument to the contrary.
Oh please, you got caught being a partisan hack, by accusing others of the same thing and now you're irritated so you lash out and call me a liar. Well, tough. Your partisanship is on display here every day, and you have the nerve and the audacity to say those that quesiton Al Gore are partisan, or lazy. Hypocrite. Heel thyself before you haul out and accuse anyone else of exactly what you do here all the time.
My God, again you claim I said "those that question Al Gore are partisan, or lazy". I said nothing of the sort. I said this criticism is unfair. If you can demonstrate a single unfair criticism I've made out of partisanship, let's see it.
Let me restate, to get around your mindless distraction:you are a liar. You said one thing, I responded, then you claimed you said something else. It's there for all to see.
I'll be back in about an hour, let's see if you can develop a sense of accountability for your dishonesty here. I'm not betting on it.
Well, now that's progress. I think an hour timeout is a darn good idea. You don't have to stand though, you can bring a chair to your corner. :)
Grow up, as you are so fond of saying.
His statement leaves the door open for a misunderstanding and possible misinterpretation - Tommy
Only to partisan hacks, people with reading compresion deficiencies, and posters who will argue semantics long into the night even though they are almost always wrong.
Which one are you?
You only reinforce my point, especially with your partisan hack comment, read my exchanged with Brab. Well timed my friend.
Wrong again. The answer was #3 on my list when it comes to you. Then again, maybe you actually do have a reading comprehension deficiency as well since you seem to think I called you a partisan hack. So I've changed my mind - it's #2 and #3.
Well, let's just say that you are free to label me from #1 - 100, or any number that makes you feel superior, I don't mind, really.
I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em - no labeling here.
Brabs said it best: Reading is fundamental.
It bears repeating - you remain the most intellectually dishonest person on this site. I'm sure you're smart enough to know what that means.
I am touched. Considering context is everything, coming from you, I am complimented.
Leave it to the righties to be proud of their mental deficiencies.
"Well, let's just say that you are free to label me from #1 - 100, or any number that makes you feel superior, I don't mind, really."
In that case I think we can agree that you are number 2
Brab, don't even get into it with Tommy or any of the other fools who would tear Al down, or support these right-wing jackalopes who want to further a 10 year old "quote". Anyone who has a brain in their heads knows that Al Gore was not claiming to have invented the internet. The internet was invented and was in use by the U.S. Government long before Gore's initiative to take it PUBLIC.
They know it's a lie, they know they're being obtuse. They just want attention. If you have to go back 10 years to "dis"-interpret a quote for your own self-aggrandizement, you're really showing how desperate you are for said attention.
Yes, all these meanies who want to "tear Al down". It's outrageous. I know, let's all host a marathon telethon and see how many "Get Well" flower arrangements for poor, torn down Al we can get sent to him. (sniff, sniff) He'd like that.
He doesn't care. He's got a Nobel Prize, Oscar, and Grammy.
If Gore's statement regarding the internet was vague or confusing (which was given in an interview and not a planned speech) it would have been nice if the media would have asked him what he meant by it or to perhaps do some research on the history of the internet, and thus, inform the public of Gore's involvement. Instead they chose the lazy and stupid approach and misinformed the public instead.
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately pointing a laughing was so much easier for them.
So now it's the media's fault for directly quoting Mr. Gore's self-aggrandizing pat on his own back? Perhaps he should have been more clear in the compliment he was giving himself, then this nearly decade old silly controversy could have been avoided.
How is it a "direct quote" if the VERB used is changed to one that he didn't say and means something else? The media MISQUOTED and MISINTERPRETED what he said, and then continued to repeat it long after it was clarified. The media IS at fault for letting that happen to the extent that it did.
Appleboy's complaint was that the media, in this case CNN, did not ask him what he meant by his statement at that time. Why is that CNN's fault? It isn't. Gore should have been more specific, as you mention above, before he puffed his own chest and bragged up his achievements. I don't feel sorry for politicians who are intentionally vague on their accomplishments and then they, and/or their supporters, get all huffy when their comments are batted around for lack of clarity.
Intentionally vague, because when someone says they do something as a member of Congress, then clearly they are hoping that people will think he invented the internet in his basement all on his own.
I don't believe this article, or any I remember say anything about his basement. But go ahead....... lol.
I don't agree with Tommy on this one, but Mr Gore did say "create." And that DID lead a lot of people to think that that is what he wanted them to believe. We're not stupid enough to buy it, but we are (for the most part) dumb enough to think that's what he was trying to claim.
Fair enough
But that relies on taking the quote out of context, just as a starter. You can't look at what he said as a whole and seriously claim that there was anything vague about what he said, can you?
No, I can. Now granted - I heard the misquote first, so we'll never know for sure. I may not have thought the original statement to be particularly remarkable, if I'd heard the whole thing, in cotext, first.
But when I did finally hear the entire quote, I still felt it was an odd way to describe what he did. I didn't think the media, or the right, was being fair by misrepresenting it as they did (and the latter always using it to lead off their arguments that we was a liar - that was particularly shameful) but I did kind of say "Huh?" when I heard what he actually said. It was awkward. The media should have tried to clarify it, rather than mock it - it wouldn't have taken much, they could simply have named the specific legislation he was refering to - But today's media would rather entertain than educate, so instead he gets mocked for having vision.
But he still should have been a little more thoughtful in his phrasing. I still say "sposored legislation that let to the creation of" would have been more effective, and essentially impossible to misquote, than sayinf he "took the inititive in creating". It's a bizarre statement, even to this man, who knows fairly well just how important a role he played.
"I may not have thought the original statement to be particularly remarkable, if I'd heard the whole thing, in cotext, first."
Well, this is what I'm saying. If you look at what he actually said, then it's pretty clear. If you're influenced by the spin you witnessed, then that doesn't change the more objective analysis. Remember, the part about Congress was in the same sentence as "took the initiative in creating the internet". There's no reason to believe that anything about sponsoring legislation couldn't have been cut out of a single sentence in a similar manner.
I disagree only in that a much larger logical leap is required for "sponsored leglislation that led to the creation of" to become "invented" than there is for "took the linititive in creating" to become "invented."
It's a misquote either way, to be sure, and if you're just going to misquote anyway then, yeah, you make any klind of strawman you want. Example: Obama never said he'd bomb Pakistan, but that one's easier to debunk because what he actually said make a hell of a lotta sense! It's hard to disagree with what he actually said. But it's not to much of stretch to sya that what Gore said about the internet did sound a little bizarre, accurate as it may have been. Had he been a little more articulate, it would not come accross as such an obvious punchline to his detractors. And if it had, it also would have been a far more egregious misquote.
OK. So Gore could have been more precise. Got it.
You're so full of BS. Yes it WAS the media's fault they MISQUOTED him. Here's the question he was asked: "What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process? "
So what was he supposed to do? Plead that he was too humble to list some of his accomplishments?
"Gore should have been more specific, as you mention above, before he puffed his own chest and bragged up his achievements"
He was specific. It's not HIS fault that you and a bunch of media morons are too lazy to look up the words "invented" and "created." Personally, I didn't have to. I, just like Al Gore, know the difference between them.
That is such baloney. Gore should have been more specific in his involvement, he was not and that has led to 10 excrutiating years of being misquoted. My hears bleeds for politicians who whine about their mistreatment because their ego sprinted ahead of their humility. Spare me, you can whine along with Al, I don't.
heart, nor hears
"My hears bleeds for politicians who whine about their mistreatment because their ego sprinted ahead of their humility"
So you DO think he should have pleaded humility and not answered the question...as opposed to answering it accurately and correctly. Hon, you live in a TRUE dream world if you think someone can get anywhere as a politician by being to humble to answer a DIRECT QUESTION about their accomplishments.
Ulysses S. Grant was humble
U.S.Grant was a great general... but a lousy president.
As of now, I beg to differ, but I'm still working my way through his biography
Avoid it? No. Be as accurate as possible? Yes.
He was accurate. There's a reason that his enemies change "create" into "invent". It's because they want to pretend he said something he didn't. Unless you believe that he could have anticipated the word "create" would be morphed into "invent" by a dishonest press.
Nobody said it wasn't a listed synonym. That doesn't make the meanings compatible. You have "fabricate" and "organize" on the same list. How similar are those words to each other?
The point is when one word is said, it is not "mockery" to assume he may have meant another, very reasonable word, that is synonymous.
But it's not reasonable. This is the hill you can't get over. What he said does not merit the mockery he received for it.
The word was chosen to try and cast the statement in the worst light possible. Otherwise, they would have chosen another synonym from your list, such as "invest".
So if Dwight Eisenhower (accurately) said he created the interstate highway system under his administration you would come to the conclusion that he was claiming to have invented freeways?
And he would have to have a huge ego for saying so, at that. Probably just taking advantage of the popularity of freeways at the time.
Another worthless and toothless analogy from La La land. If you can find Eisenhower's use of at least a similar phrase, then bring it on. I have lived with Brab and his silly analogies for years, nothing new. They are always trotted out when he's losing the relevant argument and has to reach into his bag of stupid analogies to shift it into another. I ain't impressed, in fact it's now legendary.
You're kidding right? You noticed I said "If Dwight...". Does it really matter if he actually said it or not? I've read enough of your posts to realize you're not this dense.
By the way, here's Wikipedia claiming Eisenhower invented freeways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
Analogies are a power tool in argument. That you don't grasp them, doesn't matter. The point is to make you look even sillier than you make yourself. Mission freakin' accomplished.
Thanks for proving my point. Look at all of the synonyms that funding are a part of:
"bring into being"
"bring to pass"
"cause to be"
"establish"
"found"
"initiate"
"institute"
"invest"
"plan"
"set up"
"spawn"
"start"
There's a reason that Gore's enemies, of which you seem to be one, chose to substitute his word "create" with "invent". They didn't do it by mistake. They did it to change the connotation. If the true were compeltely synonymous, substitution wouldn't be necessary.
Tommy, I agree with you. Gore's enormous ego got the best of him and he made a gaffe. Sure it was no big deal, and the media made a big stink out of nothing, but he said what he said, . . . that he "took the initiative in creating the internet." In the context which he spoke, creating and inventing are synonyms. Sh!t happens, and even liberal idols like Gore slip up.
Have you followed this thread? If so, I'm curious how you think "creating" and "inventing" are synonyms in the actual context that's been listed.
I haven't read all the comments, but read the transcript from the interview. "Creating the internet" was a poor choice of words. Of course he should be quoted accurately, but I don't think that the term "invented" is that far off the mark from what he said.
Of course it isn't. Those that jump up and down screaming over this horrible injustice done to poor Al Gore over the years, my heart goes out to them. Tissues for everyone.
It's an injustice to the truth and honesty. You should know you rape both of them regularly on this board.
It is. The Eisenhower and Roosevelt examples are illustrative.
How does his work in congress jibe with the concept of "inventing" something?
He did create the Internet. The public Internet didn't exist at the time. What did exist was a small collection of interconnected University and defense department computers only accessible by a handful of people. What Gore and others did was see the vast potential of extending existing technologies to a public Internet accessible by everyone. This required infrastructure investment and R&D incentives to bring it about. Forward thinking folks in Congress had to invest in technology. Thank goodness people like Gore had the foresight to make this investment otherwise there would be no forum available to bash him for this very inciteful decision.
Democrats aren't allowed to list their own accomplishments while seeking the Presidency. Got it.
I don't care about Democrats or Republicans, if that is what you're getting from this you are way off base. Gore should have been more specific, he was not. And as a result, it's the media's fault. What's new......
What he said was accurate. That's clearly allowed, without being "self-aggrandizing".
Well if you don't think it sounds like he's tooting his horn and gushing in his own achievements, fine. I really don't care.
Of course he was tooting his own horn. That's what politicians do when they run for office.
Fine, I don't care it about it all but at least when they do it they should be as accurate and humble as possible, not try to vaguely overstate, which is what he did, perhaps unintentionally, I don't know.
But that's what happens when politicians live on the edge of rhetoric, sometimes it comes back to bite them in the a$$.
I think you expect to much out of human beings. When people are asked a question on the spot they often struggle for the right words to say. Humans are not robotic - not even Al Gore :)
Really, Gore is talking about accomplishments, in unprepared remarks. He specifies his service in Congress, and then he's supposed to think "Whoa - someone might take my next few words out of context, so I'd better redundantly point out that I'm talking about legislation". Even if they were prepared remarks, it seems like a bizarre precaution to take.
How many politicians use the word "create" when talking about legislative achievements? My guess would be very few. The Internet was exploding when Gore was being interviewed in 1999. People were thrilled about the possibilities, so another guess would be Al Gore, being ever the opportunist that he was and looking to get a promotion in 2000, saw his cute little word "create" as a way to pad his resume' enough but also allow wiggle room for those that clarified his role. Please, Al Gore is and was anything except "off the cuff" - he lived off of exact words and their meanings, as well as vague words and the dozens of meanings they could illicit to different ears. He could have very easily been specific, yet he chose a word and a phrase that puffed him up.
The word "create" applies to "internet". It's something that exists in a much more tangible manner than a law or regulation, so comparing it to most legislative achievements is invalid.
I've yet to see any argument that what he said was not accurate, unless it's taken out of context, or how it's vague when he specified the venue for his accomplishment.
Fair enough. But then it goes to the original point and how it could very easily be interpreted to mean "invent" as well.
No, because he specified his role in Congress, meaning it was a legislative accomplishment. That simply does not lend itself to the definition of "invent".
Brab,
I interpreted Gore's comments to mean thnat while he was in Congress, at night he would go home and after dinner go down in his basement workshop and tinker with hooking computers together.. then one day he turned it over to some buddies and said, "I've taken the initiative, now go do something with it."
That's what it sounded like when he said it. That is why people still remember it.
That's sarcasm, I hope.
Careful, AA - your intellectual superiority is showing again.
What if he was? All we heard this year was that Obama didn't accomplish anything, but at the same time candidates aren't supposed to list their accomplishments. If that's the catch-22 you want people to be in, just say so.
Experience isn't just listing one's accomplishments. Another analogy that falls flat. If you want to talk about Gore, fine. Obama is not relevant to this discussion.
It's not an analogy. It's a double-standard. For Gore, he can't list his accomplishments. For Obama, it was a great concern that he didn't have many accomplishments. Are you seriously telling me you've never heard anyone here ask what bills he sponsored or how many articles he wrote for the Harvard Law Review? They were questioning what he had achieved.
Al Gore said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." This is a true, but vague statement. He deserves a lot of the credit for the creation of the internet, just ask Newt. Do you really believe Al was trying to convince America that down in his basement, while eating doritos and drinking pepsi, that he developed a TCP/IP protocols and software necessary to run the internet? Or could a more reasonable explaination be that perhaps he was referring to his legislative work regarding the internet. Bragging about ones accomplishments is what politicians do when running for office - unless your last name is Clinton or Gore, then you are "self-aggrandizing".
I never said anything about his basement, so that is a straw argument.
As a general principle, I have no interest, and frankly find it a little arrogant, for any politician, whether running for office or not, to stand there and tell me all he or she has done. Maybe it's me, but I find humility and hard work more important than blowing on one's knuckles and rubbing them on their chests. Let their work and their accomplishments speak for themselves, they don't need to tell me.
It's not a strawman argument. That's the picture the media painted for us - Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet.
Most citizens don't know the work and accomplishments of the candidates, and god forbid that the media help us out in this. And in this case CNN (Blitzer I believe) asked him to talk about his accomplishments. It's something Gore should be proud of, but instead was ridiculed for. He had a part in the creation of the internet as say many experts in this area.
"frankly find it a little arrogant, for any politician, whether running for office or not, to stand there and tell me all he or she has done"
Yep, especially when they are asked a DIRECT QUESTION to list some of those accomplishments. They should just be too darn humble to do any such thing. So says Tommy.
So, politicians shouldn't have to answer any questions?
Tommy, here's the direct quote:
Nobody with any knowledge of the creation of the internet had any disagreement with what Gore was saying. If Gore was at fault at all, it was that he neglected to take into account his opponents propensity to be willfully ignorant. Considering the focus of the interview wasn't the creation of the intertoobs, Gore can't be held accountable for not explaining his summary statement of his involvement with it.
No kidding. Evidently Ted Stevens wasn't anywhere near Gore when Gore was working on this legislation...
Stevens probably didn't even pay attention. Didn't Stevens have to vote on this legislation? If so, how is it that Stevens thinks it's a network of tubes?
Idiocy from the right....set 'em up, knock 'em down.
This whole controversy, 10 years after the fact, could have been easily avoided if Politico wouldn't have brought it out again. This isn't Gore's fault.
I can see how people might be confused, back 10 years ago, when Gore said what he said. But, if you think about it, if you put your brain to use, you would more than likely come to the conclusion that Gore didn't invent the internet - and that he wasn't claiming that he invented it, but was instrumental in making it PUBLIC.
Damn, willful ignorance is a nasty thing.
I vaguely remember when all of this was happening. I especially remember Gore talking about the "Information Superhighway" and I thought "Huh.... what?"
Ugh. You hit the nail on the head.
Not trying to derail the discussion here, but one of my biggest peeves is when people mischaracterize the now-infamous McDonald's coffee suit (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.) It is one of the most misunderstood lawsuits in American history (next to Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore.)
Liebeck deserved every penny. Actually, she deserved (and asked for) more but McDonald's got the award reduced by the judge. Her original award amount, $2.86-million, was the equivalent of two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.
Considering the absolute irrelevance of rightwing corporate talking points...
It is damned aweful funny that any of them would waste time digging up a long ago debunked lie... but not all that suprising...
They are collectively freaking out about Obama and the Dems and are going to continue to fall all over themselves...
This is going to be an aweful great time hearing about these freaks daily breakdown!
Another one of those memorable misquotes.
I'm sure that liberals invented the internet because it's an inventive, intelligent, thought provoking discovery. Repugs simply think of things in black and white, not curious about anything, like the president.
I don't think Gore even claimed to have created the internet much less that he invented it. He said he "took the initiative in creating the internet" which to me means he took action which lead to the internet being created.
From that perspective, his quote is accurate. You're spot on, Shaggles.
Geez, people. Let's apply a simple rule, shall we?
Politicians talk a lot, therefore you never punish a politician for a one-off statement. You punish them for statements that they would affirm if pressed for precision and clarification.
To defend Gore, you don't carefully parse his statement and assert its technical correctness. You smack the dumbass upside the head who is harping on it in the first place.
Look up "initiative." When you "take the initiative", it means you're taking the first or leading step.
Is it really so incredibly vague? So vague that it has to morph into something with a completely different meaning?
This is incredible. I can't believe that all these years later there are still people who say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet. It's almost as hard to believe that there are clowns around here who are still trying to defend that deceitful misrepresentation of what Gore said.
It was an extemporaneous list of some of his accomplishments rattled off in an interview which called for them to be described as briefly as possible. It's just plain stupid to say that he should have gone into greater detail in that situation.
It didn't occur to Gore at the time that he might be misunderstood. It didn't occur to Blitzer that Gore was suggesting he'd invented the internet. No one made that conclusion until DAYS LATER. NOBODY IMMEDIATELY BELIEVED GORE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE INVENTED THE INTERNET. His meaning was perfectly clear to anyone with half a brain.
The fact is, the delay in ridicule was because it took a while for someone reviewing his words in the interview looking for dirt to realize that his words could be spun in a way that no one had thought of before.
Those who say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet are lying or ignorant.
The clowns who defend that lie also fit one of those two categories.
There are no other options.
Bill, you silly man. Didn't you know that it's been ten years since this happened? That means the confusion must be Gore's fault, because it's simply impossible for people to misrepresent someone for that amount of time. And if someone conflates two different words, then it is clearly the fault of the person who's being taken out of context. They knew what they were doing when they said something that could possibly be twisted by dishonest critics.
Yes, of course you're right. In fact, for the last ten years I've carefully planned every word and phrase I've ever said in any situation to ensure not only that those to whom I am speaking fully understand my exact meaning, but that someone reviewing those words well after they were spoken couldn't possibly reinterpret them in some other way to have had a different meaning from that understood clearly by my listeners and me.
In other words, I haven't spoken in ten years.
I don't know how much of an idiot one must be to look at Gore's original quote and even think that Gore claimed to invent the Internet. I think that it could have been better worded, but EVERY BIT OF CONTEXT that Gore provides SURROUNDING the disputed 8 words, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet," point to him making legislation and activities in Congress. You have to be an IDIOT to interpret that Gore was talking about inventing the Internet inside the Capitol Building.
I know I'm late to this party, but I'd like to join in, if just for this one comment.
Quick context: Al Gore was working on initiatives in Congress relating to computer networking from the late 1970s, something for which even Newt Gingrich credits him. He popularized the phrase "information superhighway." His 1991 bill provided $600 million for support and development of what was then called the National Information Infrastructure. It was that bill, primarily, that he was referring to in his oft-misquoted statement. The claim that he "invented the internet" arose from a hostile article on Wired News which was picked up and further twisted by the RNC.
With that background, we come to Tommy, who seems to hang around here primarily because it amuses him to see how long he can insist on some point without ever providing support for it or actually responding to counterarguments.
As near as I can gather, he's insisting on this: Gore could have been clearer in his original statement. Therefore, it was reasonable for people to think he had claimed to have "invented" the internet. Therefore, if anyone objects to this still being said nearly 10 years later, they are "whining." "(sniff, sniff) ... My heart bleeds ... my heart goes out to them. Tissues for everyone."
To quote Tommy: "Do you know how ridiculous that statement of yours is?"
Because Tommy insists on this despite the fact that by his own admission, it's quite true that Gore meant no such thing. So if you object to a false accusation that has persisted for 10 years, you're "whining."
Despite the fact that any competent media outlet would not have, as several almost immediately did, adopted the twisted version and ignored the actual version. Object to that, you're "whining."
Despite the fact that any competent media outlet would have spent a few minutes doing some background on Gore's involvement with promoting computer networking, which would have made his meaning crystal clear. Object to that, you're "whining."
Despite the fact that it's doubtful more than a handful of those who "misunderstood" Gore actually heard the real quote instead of the twisted one. Object to that, you're "whining."
So for Tommy's - and I use the word solely for convenience - argument to make sense, even without getting into how "reasonable" it would be to substitute "invent" for "create" in that context, he must be saying that if you ever fail to express yourself with utter precision and clarity, it is okay for people to misinterpret it, to ignore any attempts at correction, and to spend the next 10 years laughing at you and to say you're "whining" when you point out their error.
I certainly hope for Tommy's sake he never makes a slip of the tongue - or, if he does, the people around him have more respect for accuracy of meaning than he does.
That's an excellent summary.
Just to pile on some more, let's also note this line from early in the thread:"I don't care about Democrats or Republicans, if that is what you're getting from this you are way off base. Gore should have been more specific, he was not. And as a result, it's the media's fault. What's new......"
And this:"His use of the word "create" is where the confusion lies. And it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to take from that, "invent". Nobody twisted anything, that is ridiculous."
But when Cheney implies that Iraq is connected to 9/11, he says "If he never said it, then he never said it.......and this is misinformation on the part of MMFA for putting this thread here." (bold in original). Not that it's Cheney's fault for being vague, no. It's MMfA's fault for pointing out the clear implication of what he said. And saying that they're wrong, well that's not "whining" at all, of course. It doesn't make any difference if the "confusion" happens to lie in part of what Cheney said (and he's all about the "disclaimer" in context, as if that somehow changes Cheney's meaning), or if it's reasonable to take "Iraq was involved in 9/11" from it, the fact is that if he didn't say it, he didn't say it, and that's all that needs to be said. But now, Gore didn't say "invent", he didn't imply invent, but yet it's reasonable for people to substitute one clear meaning for another. And that's Gore's fault.
So if Cheney says something, he must be taken absolutely literally, with no room for interpretation of meaning whatsoever. If Gore answers a question about accomplishments with an accurate description of one of his accomplishments, then his being taken out of context and misinterpreted is his own fault for being somehow vague and egotistic. Of course, Tommy doesn't care whether it's a Democrat or Republican. To say so would be "way off base".
Wow. Bravo to LarryE and to Brabantio for cutting through the diversions, digressions and distractions, and getting to the heart of the matter. Tommy and his allies can spin all they want, but for the truth, just take a look at those two comments.
Well played, gentlemen.
Thanks! It was a lot of fun, and I'm sure Tommy won't be able to refrain from digging the same hole the next time someone is called out for perpetuating this lie.
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Sounds like the standard Algore self promotion that got him into trouble numerous more times than you liberals like.
It's even worse than that. Gore said the words "my" and "I" hundreds of times in every imaginable context throughout his career.
This is hard for a liberal to accept, but while Gore was campaigning for the most powerful office in the country, he actually stated that he was the right person for the job. He even directly stated that people should vote for him instead of his opponent. It's all on tape, too.
Yes, Gore sure had his nerve accurately describing some of his accomplishments in an interview in which he had just been asked to name some of his accomplishments.
webelibtards, you are clearly an idiot.
If I'm an idiot compared to these Algoreisms, then I guess I don't feel so bad about it.
"Who are those people?" referring to a bust of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin at Monticello
"There was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so"
"A zebra does not change it's spots"
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things"
Or finding Love Canal 2 months after evacuation. Should I go on?
Quayle made the "verbosity" remark, not Gore. Are you sure you aren't misattributing anything else on that list?
It wouldn't address the point anyway, that your criticism of someone "self-promoting" during a Presidential campaign and when specifically asked to list accomplishments is beyond stupid. Democrats are allowed to promote themselves in this sort of situation just as well as Republicans are. It's the whole idea, really.
Also, your line "If I'm an idiot compared to these Algoreisms..." isn't too bright. If you're an idiot compared to things you are saying are dumb, then you're even dumber by comparison. That's something you should feel bad about.
This isn't really a fight you want to start, either. Do you really want to go tit-for-tat with Gore against Quayle, either Bush, Palin or especially Reagan? I seriously doubt it.
Follow-up:I did a google search on your "zebra" and "who are those people". I got Gargaro.com. On that very site, it says this:
You know that "Love Canal" quote? The media botched it - read below:
----
Note that the above is a link. Also note that on that page, the "verbosity" quote is listed as Quayle's. This person, as I noted, is not a fan of Gore. At least he has some sense of honesty, though. What a welcome change.
I love this quote, attached to the love canal item:"Can anyone explain HOW one is supposed to know the media botched a quote if all the mainstream media outlets are publishing the same incorrect info over and over?" That applies very well to the topic at hand here, where the media has been repeating this "invented" crap for ten long years.
Speaking of being partisan, what were the people who changed the word "created" to "invented?" Why did they do that, if not for partisan purposes? Or were they just incompetent quoters? Or purposeful deceivers?
There is a difference between a quote and a paraphrase. Al Gore was misquoted but even 10 years later, lazy writers still don't get it. One would think that given all of Al Gore's accomplishments, they owe him the courtesy of vetting this issue.
As a commenter stated, the internet might have gone the way of cable where private companies control what you see and how much you pay. Al Gore helped guide this government program so that it benefited the citizens of this country. That is a significant distinction and accomplishment. If you have any doubt, take a stroll though Medicare Part D.