Today on Blogcritics
Home » Is This Al Gore’s New Campaign Strategy?

Is This Al Gore’s New Campaign Strategy?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Am I the only person to find Al Gore’s winning of a Nobel Prize a little irksome? Sure he has brought the problem of global warming to a wider audience. Sure he has helped raise consciousness of environmental problems and pushed ‘green’ issues onto the agenda of mainstream America. But I cannot help but find it all a little too cozy. A snub to Bush? A feather in his cap for a 2008 presidential campaign?

In last Saturday’s London Independent (Oct 13), Rupert Cornwell details Al Gore’s political history and comments on the likelihood of him running for the presidency at any time in the future. Mr Cornwell points out that were Gore and Hillary Clinton to compete for the Democrat nomination for 2008 it would possibly have the effect of splitting the party. He also comments that the Clinton psychodrama when added to the Gore ‘mantle of saviour of the planet’ might be just a little too much psychodrama for the American electorate. All of which would be good news for the Republicans.

But my problem with Al Gore is not just with this political past but with what is suggested in Rupert Cornwell’s title, ‘An Oscar. The Nobel Peace Prize. Now, can Al Gore win the presidency?’

Firstly, Mr Cornwell overlooks some ‘awkward facts’ about Al. It was Al who claimed to have invented the Internet. It was Al’s documentary, that last week was found by a British High Court judge to contain ‘nine crucial scientific errors and was a political film rather than an impartial analysis of climate change. It was Al who with a leaden campaign in an election considered his to win, threw it away and let Bush junior at the reins.

Whenever thinking of Al Gore I am reminded of his distant cousin’s description, ‘a genial chump’. Gore Vidal, (the distant cousin), in his book Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace informs us that Al is said to be a fan of the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) mantra. Al, when contemplating serious political matters claims to ask himself this simple question – WWJD. Distant cousin Gore comments Al surely would be better asking, ‘what would the founding fathers do?'  That's a sentiment someone genuinely concerned about their country’s future should concur with.

There is something irksome about the whole ‘save the planet’ movement. It ties in with the WWJD mentality. It comes over with an apocalyptic, self-righteous tone. I do not question the fact that many scientists have grave concerns. But there are others who are not convinced. And the purpose of scientific inquiry is to find the facts. To uncover truth. Historically, scientific inquiry has tended to support conclusions based on a variety of factors determining a situation. And no doubt, some time in the future, we will learn that global warming is not a single reason problem. That it is more complex than we thought.

The ‘green’ issue has become a kind of exercise in collective flag waving. It especially suits the burgeoning middle class as it allows them to overlook questions of distribution of wealth, the relationship between poverty and health, poverty and education, poverty and opportunity. The planet is at risk. There is urgency. What we need to do is cut back on this, cut back on that. Our sense of social well-being is counted in the number of energy-saving bulbs we have in our homes (not cheap). How much organic food we eat (not that the disadvantaged can afford it). And how often we drive to recycle all those boxes in which our plastic computers, kitchen utensils, labour saving devices come in (we don’t want to stop being consumers we just want to become greener consumers).

The question we have to ask is, has Mr. Gore grasped this salient point and does he, despite his protestations otherwise, still harbour presidential ambitions?

I cannot help but fear that the relevance in Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize may not be the effect it will have on the climate change debate but in the discovery of a new political strategy. First drop out of mainstream politics. Discover a somewhat ‘outside’ concern – preferably with ‘high’ moral tone. Get the media involved for example make a movie, documentary, television special. Win an Oscar or some such award, then a ‘high’ profile but meaningless political prize. Go back to the electorate cleaned of the taint of back-room deals, horse trading, compromise and the need to balance competing interests.

Al Gore, really, has done little to deserve this award. He has helped publicise one argument in an ongoing and complex debate. He has championed a viewpoint without really having to accredit the difficulties of it. If he were to run for the 2008 Democrat nomination and win it and then to win the Presidency on the back of this prize we would be witnessing a form of ‘ambush’ politics. He would have come at the political fray from outside the political fray. He would have renounced politics in order to further his political ambitions. He would be saying the way to be a politician is to pretend not to be a politician at all

Powered by

About David Millington

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The author could perhaps write a more perceptive article on UK politicians like Gordon Brown or his Tory opposition, David Cameron.

    This one about a once [and maybe future] US politician just recycles not very interesting, mild insults. Referring to the winning of the Nobel as a ‘strategy’ is just one example of the poor reasoning on display here.

  • Baronius

    I don’t think it’s a new or rare strategy. A lot of people step back from office and anticipate the cry for them to return. The funny thing is, they often find out they’re more forgettable than they imagined.

    Look at Edwards and Thompson. Both of them took a step back to leap forward. Edwards went a more conventional route, consultancy, think tanks – essentially being a full-time campaigner. Fred managed to leave politics and keep his face out there. Actually, he increased his visibility by leaving politics.

    It’s a hugely risky move though. You risk taking yourself out of the arena. If you’re Eisenhower, great; but you might be Shwarzkopf.

  • Lapdog

    “It was Al’s documentary, that last week was found by a British High Court judge to contain ‘nine crucial scientific errors and was a political film rather than an impartial analysis of climate change.”

    Permission was given for the film to be shown in UK secondary schools, with the judge saying many of the claims made in the film are supported by scientific evidence and research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals. He also stated that many of the claims are in accordance with the latest conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  • Clavos

    But nonetheless, the errors were noted (and some of them are humdingers, with zero scientific basis), and the court instructed school authorities to point out the errors in class and to define them as such.

  • moonraven

    Humbug. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Bill

    Are people afraid of Al Gore? So many people badmouth him every time he makes news. Even polsters have gone biased. Gallop did a survey asking if Al Gore should run for president. Their results determined that Al should not enter the race to the score of 43 to 52. Out of 530 people polled, only 170 were democrats. Assuming the other 360 were republican, it would mean that a substantial number of the republicans polled wanted Al to run. If they polled all democrats, what do you think Al would score? 70 to 30?
    People take the time to say bad things about Al Gore because they are threatened by him and the very real possibility he could win the presidency. That I beleive is true. Even If Al entered at the last moment, he would not have lost any time as he has name recognition and people know what his issues are. For that reason he would not have to raise a lot of money (to catch up to Hillary and Barroc) and he has amassed a small war chest of his own.

  • Clavos

    “People take the time to say bad things about Al Gore because they are threatened by him and the very real possibility he could win the presidency.”

    Nah. It’s just because his self-righteous arrogance is a very tempting target.

    If he were more down-to-earth and approachable, he probably would have won the first time he ran. His attitude is read by the masses as that of a narcissist who thinks he’s better than everyone else.

  • Lapdog

    And with the errors being pointed out, Al’s Inconvenient Truth will still educate a whole lot of young people.

    The schools should show a video of Bush’s performances as a warm-up. Especially the one where he’s clomping around in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier.

    They could call it An Inconvenient Goof.

  • moonraven

    Uh, clavos: He DID win when he ran for president in 2000.

    There is no reason for him to dirty his hands by running now.

    But he IS a longtime pol from a pol family, so if drafted might well run.

    You masochistic gringos would probably find some way for him to “lose” again–so that you can suffer the loss of personal rights and dignity for another 8 years with some shitkicker.

    You will get no compassion from me.

  • Clavos

    Uh, mr:

    Funny, but usually when you win, you take office….

    Several independent recounts showed Gore LOST.

    Get over it.

  • moonraven

    Hey, swamp rat, I did not vote for Gore. I have nothing to get over.

    The fact is, he received more votes for president of the US of Assholes than did George W. Bush.

    In a DEMOCRACY–not a plutocracy with an electoral college sitting there like a retarded 6 year old girl ready to be felt up and finger-fucked by the elite–the person who gets the most votes wins. Period.

    You obviously have taken a masochistic delight in having your phone calls monitored, your library card massaged, your rights under what used to be called The Bill of Rights erased.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    YOU get over it.

  • D. C.

    I didn’t vote for Al Gore the first time around, but I do believe he could win the 2008 election. (voted for Perot) I believe the right-wingers are scared sh*Tless of Al Gore and will even start the smearing when he’s not even in the race.

    BTW, I think a lot of conservatives wouldn’t mind someone who would think WWJD, it’s a whole lot better than a paranoid pre-emptive striker who is putting us into serious debt and undermining our security more than the terrorists.

  • Clavos

    “In a DEMOCRACY–not a plutocracy with an electoral college sitting there like a retarded 6 year old girl ready to be felt up and finger-fucked by the elite–the person who gets the most votes wins. Period.”

    Need I remind you the USA is a Republic???

  • Bill

    Clavos
    Is Al Gore a public kicking post? The republican attack sqaud and its cohorts are very afraid Al Gore could be president, because, he stands for a strong reversal of the policies that keep greedy right wingers fat, rich, and happy. People who badmouth Al Gore without merrit simply show all concerned that they are of lower quality. It’s Als integrity that is like garlic to a vampire to them. If Al is nothing, why waste time on him? If you want to target someone, why not the furtile Bush?
    The Al Gore of 2000 was a stiff–understandable. He had to walk on path strongly influenced by Clintons indescressions. Today, Al is a person of great acheivement and someone who has frequently used self depricating humor. He played himself on Saturday Night Live and it was funny.
    Today, Al Gore projects himself as a very real, caring, non self serving, mature adult. His message is important. With Als wealth, don’t you think he could retire early and live an easy life? Yes, I’m sure he could. So, what drives Al Gore to keep working? Could it be that he truly believes in serving people in a way that will make our lives better? If someone of this quality that seems to have focus that is not detured by cheap attacks is construed as being better than everyone else, then there is no hope for ever putting a real leader in office. Face it. Everyone has flaws. You can choose to see the flaws or see the good. If you can’t get over the flaws, chances are that you are a perfectionist and need psychological theropy.

    Moonraven, you need to get layed.

  • Clavos

    “With Als wealth, don’t you think he could retire early and live an easy life? Yes, I’m sure he could. So, what drives Al Gore to keep working?”

    Power? Recognition? Ego?

    And yes, you’re right; I DO need “psychological theropy.” I’m addicted to trying to reason with comments like yours; I can’t help myself.

  • Bill

    Clavos
    Sorry about touching your tender spot.
    Power is the ultimate ahprodisiac isn’t it? Recognition? How much more than all he is getting after winning a Nobel? Ego? You’re twisting the obvious. Anyone who has been where Al or anyone at his level has been had to have the ego to get there. He probably has the balls to match. However, Al is humble.
    As for you, it would appear as though your ego controls you. You might try acknowledging what is plainly self evident, as in “We hold these truths to be self evident…….

  • Clavos

    You missed my point, Bill.

    It’s precisely the recognition inherent in being awarded the nobel that now drives him even more strongly than before. Each succeeding recognition and/or award will only reinforce the drive within him.

    “However, Al is humble.”

    You must be talking about some other Al. Every aspect of his persona betrays his superciliousness and arrogance, from the style and delivery of his lectures (in which he invariably condescends to his audiences), right down to the arrogance of his urging all of us to cut back our carbon use while he lives in a behemoth of a house that consumes 20X more electricity than the average middle class home.

    And my (distressingly average) ego is just fine, thank you.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I did vote for Gore in 2000 (Bush was and still is a dry drunk idiot being manipulated by daddy’s boys) – and so far as I’m concerned, he had the election stolen and was willing to sit still for it. For that reason alone I’d not vote for him again if he ran – if I still was stupid enough to live in America, that is.

    On the other hand Nixon had the 1960 election stolen from him – and he returned eight years later to take office….

  • Bill

    Clavos
    It’s pointles to go round and round about these issues. You see him through your value lense and I mine. I see Al as a very refreshing change and promise to restore honesty and integrity to the oval office. He has ideals I beleive in. Somehow beleiving in what Al Gore stands for seems to beat the institutional dishonesty that has become the politics of today, not to mention the healthier way to live. The remarks about Als lifestyle would assume that a person who has risen to his level should somehow live like he’s in the middle class. If you don’t think Al is important, you might think he should live in a shack and drive an old Honda Civic.
    As far as your perception of Als arrogance, it’s an American trait. If you want to pick on traits though, how did Bushs command of the english language get past you. And, if you don’t mind my asking, who do you see as a good and viable candidate in the 2008 election? Are there any?
    I don’t think Al will run, although I wish he would. All this alterior motive stuff.
    As for your distressingly average ego, you would say that. It’s a perfect answer.

  • Clavos

    “It’s pointles to go round and round about these issues. You see him through your value lense and I mine.”

    True. I naturally think my lens is clearer.

    “I see Al as a very refreshing change and promise to restore honesty and integrity to the oval office.”

    Whereas I see only misguided zealotry. I will give you his honesty; he does seem convinced he’s right.

    “The remarks about Als lifestyle would assume that a person who has risen to his level should somehow live like he’s in the middle class.”

    Not at all. If I had his kind of money, I’d live on a giant, fuel-gulping yacht, cruising around the world full time.

    You missed my point, which is: If he wants to consume 20X as much energy as the rest of us, that’s OK (I don’t even believe he’s hurting the environment by doing so), but it’s hypocritical of him to preach to the rest of us that we should reduce our carbon consumption while he consumes as much as 20 of us put together. And, it’s arrogant.

    Even if you don’t agree it’s hypocritical of him, surely you CAN see that he destroys his credibility on the topic by living the lifestyle he does.

  • Bill

    Clavos
    Principles are principles. It doesn’t matter who has the good idea. It stands on its own. Just for ha ha’s, if you compare square foot consumption of energy on Als home, does it come out higher? Maybe his home is energy efficient.

  • Clavos

    “Maybe his home is energy efficient.”

    It doesn’t matter if it is or not! That’s totally beside the point, efficient or not, according to his electric supplier, his home uses twenty times the electricity of an average middle class home.

    The point, which you still are completely missing, is:

    As an excessive user of energy himself, he has no right to tell the rest of us not to be.

    It’s that simple.

    You mention principles, saying it doesn’t matter who (in this case gore) has the “good idea.”

    If “stopping global warming” is the “principle” he believes in, why is he leading a lifestyle that (according to his theories) exacerbates global warming? By your reasoning, he’s not being true to his own “principles.”

    And that brings us back to one of my original points: he’s arrogant; he implicitly tells all of us, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

    It truly flabbergasts me how those who support him can fail to see the huge dichotomy between gore’s “principles” and his actions.

  • moonraven

    Bill,

    How ridiculously misogynist of you.

    A beautiful woman like I am has a cast of thousands of all colors and ages beating her door down at all times.

    I don’t come on here to circle jerk–that’s what you impotent males do.

    Al Gore is way to good for all of you gringo scum.

  • Bill

    Moonraven
    you just come across as frustrated.

  • Bill

    Clavos

    Again we are beating a dead horse. The energy provider gives a broad statistic and everyone goes to town with it. Again, Al Gore is famous/imfamous. His property needs extra security such as lighting…bla bla bla. The size of your house or car makes no difference as long as it is fuel efficient. Peoples personal needs for space are different. If you have a big house, have an efficient furnace or ac as well–not too hard.
    If you want to pick on actions verses principles, look at how much the CEO of United Way makes–and they are serving people who don’t have much money. The return arguement is that those poor people are getting much more that way than if they had a lower paid, less talented CEO. Go figure. They should consider themselves lucky that a $40 million per year CEO is in their corner. Poor slobs.
    Al is a celebrity and is weathy. One could make the arguement that he needs what he has just like any other famous person and it would be very difficult to do with less. Besides that point, it only seems to matter to people who are afraid of Al Gore becoming president. People who like him (and would vote for him) could care less. So who are you trying to convince? People who already think like like you and need someone to come up with a falacious argument to latch onto.
    As for the arrogance you keep coming back to, who cares. I’ve known many arrogant public servants who worked their asses off to make a difference and did. If you eliminated all the arrogant leaders in the world, you would have to start over. So get over it. It comes with the territory.

  • REMF

    “It doesn’t matter if it is or not! That’s totally beside the point, efficient or not, according to his electric supplier, his home uses twenty times the electricity of an average middle class home.”
    – Clavos

    So you’re concerned about Al Gore’s electric bill, but you look the other way regarding GW Bush’s desertion…(?)

    Weird.

  • Clavos

    “The size of your house or car makes no difference as long as it is fuel efficient. Peoples personal needs for space are different. If you have a big house, have an efficient furnace or ac as well–not too hard.”

    So, what you’re saying here is the US, as the world’s biggest consumer of carbon with the world’s biggest carbon footprint can continue in that role, as long as we do it with efficient equipment?

    That flies in the face of what all the alarmists are saying, but it works for me; I’m already using fuel efficient things, so, I don’t have to care what gore says about reducing my carbon footprint, great!

    Fine, al, live in as big a house as you want, burn all the electricity you want, as long as you use fluorescent bulbs and insulation, it’s OK, Bill says so.

    “If you want to pick on actions verses principles, look at how much the CEO of United Way makes–and they are serving people who don’t have much money.”

    Specious analogy. The CEO of United Way is not telling the world that they need to live the way he says they should. And, the United Way ia a private charity that can pay its CEO whatever it wants to; if you’re not happy with that, you don’t have to give it money, find a more efficient charity; or, if it really bugs you, you can lobby congress to remove its tax-exempt status.

    As I said before: I believe that global warming is a cyclical pattern that has been occurring for hundreds of thousands of years without humanity’s participation, and I really don’t care how much electricity gore or anyone else uses. But I do care when he or anyone else who’s a big user tries to tell me I should reduce my energy use while they aren’t reducing theirs. I’m not wealthy or famous, but there’s no way I’m going to sacrifice so those who are don’t have to, which is what you seem to be advocating here.

    “So who are you trying to convince?”

    No one. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the best-known and theoretically most influential advocate for reducing the alleged ill effects of theoretically anthropogenic global warming.

    Good luck with that.

  • moonraven

    clavos, the high school dropout trafficker of gusanos now wants to convince us that he knows more than scientists and intelligent, educated folks.

    Lots of luck, swamprat.

    Maybe you wouldn’t be so envious if you HAD services such as electricity, runing water and a flush toilet.

    You have been harping on Gore’s use of electricity for at least the year I have visited this site.

    It would help your cause to come up with at least one other bogus argument for why Gore should not have been given the Nobel prize–and that it should have been given to you.

    Rave on, John Dumb. (Van Morrison will just have to forgive me for that one….)

  • bliffle

    The Neocon Defamation Noise Machine just can’t stop once it’s started up, can it? Ten years ago they started on Gore and beat him 8 years ago and the damn thing is still running! And Gore isn’t even in politics anymore!

    Those who are inclined to buy in to the Noise Machine dictates, with that knee-jerk reaction we can all identify so easily, should watch John Mclaughlins “One on One” interview with Hans Blix on PBS this weekend. Therein you will see sufficient to dissuade any sentient person from ever automatically falling for the Noise Machine again.

  • Clavos

    Yet another nail in the alarmists’ coffin.

    This time from a well-respected scientist.

  • Lapdog

    “Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate.”

    Fear was the method used to launch an invasion of defenceless Iraq and the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

    If it’s ok to scare people into murdering their fellow human beings for middle east oil then it should be an acceptable way of making them pay attention to environmental issues.

  • Clavos

    “If it’s ok to scare people into murdering their fellow human beings for middle east oil…”

    Are you saying you had no problem with that?

    Because I sure did, and do.

  • moonraven

    Clavos doesn’t give a shit because he is even older than I am and won’t be frying his redneck ass when other younger people will be.

    Simple as that.

    The old Let em eat cake attitude.

    Too bad there is no guillotine in Miami.

  • Lapdog

    If it’s ok to scare people into murdering their fellow human beings for middle east oil…

    “Are you saying you had no problem with that?”

    Why would I have a problem with an historical fact?

    You are aware that the US and the UK used scare tactics as an excuse to go slaughter Iraqis, aren’t you?

  • Bill

    Clavos

    Even the Whitehouse agrees that there is “global climate change”, and a majority of the worlds leading scientists now agree that the earth is warming due to carbon emissions.
    Clavos:
    “So, what you’re saying here is the US, as the world’s biggest consumer of carbon with the world’s biggest carbon footprint can continue in that role, as long as we do it with efficient equipment? ”

    No. We need to change our way of thinking. Using better equipment is just the start. We need to start changing our laws and policies to support lower carbon emissions. Right now, you can buy a motor vehicle equipped with “ultra pure emissions” which will shut down half of its power when the load has leveled off–burning half the fuel and emmitting far less carbon dioxide all while keeping 250 hp ready to go. You see? And soon, engineers will do better. Electric cars that use braking power to generate energy, uses previosly discarded energy. If the cars of tomorrow had this, think of how much energy would be saved.

    Bill:
    “If you want to pick on actions verses principles, look at how much the CEO of United Way makes–and they are serving people who don’t have much money.”

    Clavos:
    “Specious analogy. The CEO of United Way is not telling the world that they need to live the way he says they should. And, the United Way ia a private charity that can pay its CEO whatever it wants to; if you’re not happy with that, you don’t have to give it money, find a more efficient charity; or, if it really bugs you, you can lobby congress to remove its tax-exempt status.”

    Life just isn’t fair is it? The point is that CEO lives richly while helping the poor–to the point where that large a difference should make you ill. If Al lives richly while telling everyone else to cut back, then “oh well”. The outcome is far better.

    Clavos:
    “I’m not wealthy or famous, but there’s no way I’m going to sacrifice so those who are don’t have to, which is what you seem to be advocating here.”

    Be the bigger person. This type of reasoning is why couples get devorced. I’m sure you can figure that out.

    Is this the best you can throw at Al Gore? “The do as I say not as I do?” Let’s put that into some perspective. President Nixon–not perfect, caught in a lie. Ford–good guy. Carter–good guy, not enough performance. Reagan–memmory problem–no huge drawbacks. Bush Sr.–Good but let the economy sink too low in certain regions. Clinton–got his we-we wet and the republican congress impeached him. Bush Jr–starts a war that has a death toll of over a million people. No one stops him. Al Gore– uses a few too many kilowatt hours. Or Clinton advocating fidelity, Bush advocating peace, Gore advocating carbon reduction.
    Seriously, where’s your beef going?
    Everyone knows that fossile fuels are finite. So, why not error on the side safety? If pursuing lower carbon emissions helps people to reduce fossile fuel consumption, then that is a good thing. If we are wrong about global warming, at least our fossile fuel would last longer.

  • Clavos

    Bill,

    I have not said anywhere that there is no global warming, only that I side with the scientists who say that the vast majority of it is not anthropogenic, and that what little (proportionately to say, cow farts) we add, according to those same scientists, has no measurable effect on GW.

    “We need to start changing our laws and policies to support lower carbon emissions. Right now, you can buy a motor vehicle equipped with “ultra pure emissions” which will shut down half of its power when the load has leveled off–burning half the fuel and emmitting far less carbon dioxide all while keeping 250 hp ready to go. You see? And soon, engineers will do better. Electric cars that use braking power to generate energy, uses previosly discarded energy. If the cars of tomorrow had this, think of how much energy would be saved.”

    I have no problem with that. As I’ve said, the quicker we can stop buying oil from the arabs and hugo chavez, the better off we’ll be; if it also reduces CO2, fine; whatever floats your boat.

    However, I don’t think we should impose measures that cost more than the gain achieved; that way lies financial ruin.

    “The point is that CEO lives richly while helping the poor–to the point where that large a difference should make you ill.”

    Why should it make me ill? He’s helping poor people, what’s wrong with him making whatever United Way is willing to pay him, even if it’s a lot of money? United Way’s board of directors obviously think he’s making them more money than he costs (unlees they’re idiots), and as it happens, United Way is one of the more efficient charities in this country, according those who measure those things.

    I have never understood left wing hatred of those who make a lot of money. That’s such a communist attitude.

    “Everyone knows that fossile fuels are finite.”

    Logic tells you that’s true, and I don’t disagree. But, we haven’t found the end yet, especially with oil hitting $90+ bucks a barrel. Nonetheless, I’m all for throwing HUGE amounts of money at energy R&D to develop a viable renewable fuel source ASAP. I would dearly like to see the arabs become poor again.

    “Be the bigger person. This type of reasoning is why couples get devorced. I’m sure you can figure that out.”

    I’ve been living with my wife for more than forty years. ’nuff said.

    Doesn’t have a damn thing to do with my original point: that gore has a lot of nerve asking all the rest of us to cut back when he’s not willing to even set an example.

  • moonraven

    The deal with folks like clavos and Nalle is this:

    If they do it, believe in it, fuck it, drink it or promote it–it’s just fine.

    Ditto for their Republican shitkicker heroes.

    If someone else who is not a Republican shitkicker does it, believes it, fucks it, drinks it or promotes it–it-s evil.

    Folks like that are fundamentalist fatheads.

  • Bill

    Clavos

    I’m sorry if I have insulted you or caused insult to come your way.
    Gore is nervy. OK. I can live with that.

    Clavos:

    “However, I don’t think we should impose measures that cost more than the gain achieved; that way lies financial ruin.”

    Very interesting concept. I would guess you lean tward the scientific side. I like economics myself. Believe it or not, it can work. At face value, your logic is true. In practice, however, Alan Greenspan has pulled off bigger stunts than that. I’m not going to be a big explainer here. Think of the rising price of oil. At what point do you think it would become feasible and desirable for the consumer to purchase the new technology. It may come sooner than you think. And if for some reason, we are cut off from the oil or part of it and we were forced to convert, do you think we would prevail? Here is a concept most people don’t get or believe. The price of gasoline is fixed daily. Its rising price takes the pressure off of inflation so the Fed doen’t have to raise interest rates. There always seems to be an explaination why, but over the last 20 years, that statement has held true. So, if you substitute the introduction and implementation of new technology for expensive gas, it most certainly can be managed. Don’t forget the best part of all, the new technology could be the biggest economic boom we have ever seen, and if the dollar stays low, we will be exporting this all over the world. Remember, “guns or butter”.

    Bill:
    “The point is that CEO lives richly while helping the poor–to the point where that large a difference should make you ill.”

    Clavos:
    Why should it make me ill? He’s helping poor people, what’s wrong with him making whatever United Way is willing to pay him, even if it’s a lot of money? United Way’s board of directors obviously think he’s making them more money than he costs (unlees they’re idiots), and as it happens, United Way is one of the more efficient charities in this country, according those who measure those things.

    I don’t disagree. There are talented soles out there who would do the job for 1% of his pay just to have the chance to serve, and would gladly watch the money go further their cause. As for why a board voted for his pay, he belongs to that club. They all vote to give themselves a raise. Yahoo!!

    Clavos:
    I have never understood left wing hatred of those who make a lot of money. That’s such a communist attitude.

    Not really. It’s a regulatory issue. If you took all regulation away, what would you have? A completely free market full of every criminal action you could imagine. So rein the regs back. How far should we bring it back? Where they are now seems to be the equalibrium. If there was too much abuse in CEO pay(pay that most people would view as obsurd), then the government may or could create standards that regulate pay. They could create some equation to set pay the same as the people who work for them. And, of course, you could put in a performance variable and make them EARN their bonus. They could also say things like no bonus if you had to cut jobs.
    We can’t be regulation free, so you have to choose some place alomg the regulation spectrum to exist. We are nowhere near being communist.

  • Clavos

    Bill,

    You have in no way insulted me, nor caused me to be insulted by others. Not to worry. The troll types who are inserting their insults of me in between our discussion follow me (and others) around from thread to thread for just that purpose. It doesn’t bother me, and you certainly did not precipitate it.

    “At what point do you think it would become feasible and desirable for the consumer to purchase the new technology. It may come sooner than you think. And if for some reason, we are cut off from the oil or part of it and we were forced to convert, do you think we would prevail? Here is a concept most people don’t get or believe. The price of gasoline is fixed daily. Its rising price takes the pressure off of inflation so the Fed doen’t have to raise interest rates. There always seems to be an explaination why, but over the last 20 years, that statement has held true. So, if you substitute the introduction and implementation of new technology for expensive gas, it most certainly can be managed. Don’t forget the best part of all, the new technology could be the biggest economic boom we have ever seen, and if the dollar stays low, we will be exporting this all over the world. Remember, “guns or butter”.”

    I totally agree with you here. I think, at $90 a barrel, the price of oil is already in the feasibility range to make alternate fuels competitive, as well as making more difficult extraction of petroleum resources more competitive. The moment is already here, IMO.

    What DOES concern me, however, is that I see no coordinated, concerted (and focused) effort to move in that direction. There doesn’t seem to be a resolve, a will, to achieve the goal of a renewable fuel, as there was when Kennedy vowed we would go to the moon.

    “Not really. It’s a regulatory issue. If you took all regulation away, what would you have? A completely free market full of every criminal action you could imagine.”

    True. But extremely high pay for a CEO in a private corporation isn’t and shouldn’t be a concern of the government unless it involves a crime (and it shouldn’t be made criminal). Government regulation of commerce should be restricted only to criminal activity, not private issues like salaries.

    “We are nowhere near being communist.”

    I know. I was engaging in hyperbole. But, hatred of the rich DOES seem to be the province of the left, and I don’t understand it at all. In this country, I see their existence as a symbol of what is possible.

    I have a client who started his working life as a cab driver. Through diligence, hard work, intelligence, (and yes, some luck–a lot of luck), today he owns the franchise for all of the ground transportation (cabs, limos, shuttles, etc.) at a major US airport and is a VERY wealthy man. He has a tenth grade education, and grew up in an innercity ghetto home. He tells me that at an early age he became determined to get out of the poverty and make enough money to bring his family (mother and siblings) with him.

    He has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

    What’s wrong with his being so wealthy?

    Nothing I can see.

    He employs dozens of people and provides a valuable service that enhances his community and enriches the economy of his city and state.

    More power to him, I say.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    There doesn’t seem to be a resolve, a will, to achieve the goal of a renewable fuel

    Well, heads are going to have to come out of the Arabian sands eventually. Unless we think that all the oil we’ve extracted from the ground over the last yay many years is somehow going to magically reappear…

  • moonraven

    Magical thinking of just that sort is what drives US policy: Both foreign and domestic.

    It is also one of the drugs of choice in other countries.

    Back to Al Gore, this is MY theory about him:

    He is trying to save his soul, after all the dirty, scumball years of being a political pimp.

    Might even call it the Jimmy Carter Syndrome–although Carter spent less time pushing the whores.