home

Too Much Of A Good Thing

I really enjoy Atrios' "Wanker of the Day" series. But today he really misses the mark though, naming Richard Cohen Wanker of the Day, thanks to some overblown reporting by Media Matters.

Today Cohen wrote a terrific column on Al Gore. It seems impossible to me that Cohen could be the Wanker of the Day for that column. If that is the worst of the day, then our work is done as bloggers and we can all go back to our previous quiet lives.

But the problem stems from some overblown and sloppy work by Media Matters. For example, Media Matters criticizes Cohen for:

Richard Cohen faulted "some of my colleagues" who "caricatured" former Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 presidential campaign "as a serial exaggerator, a fibber, a pretender . . . Cohen himself, however, contributed to this "caricature" of Gore in 2000, even after he acknowledged that the portrayal of Gore as dishonest was baseless.

At the time, however, Cohen himself frequently propagated the image of Gore as an "exaggerator." For example, in his October 12, 2000, Post column, Cohen wrote:

[S]ome of the same people and editorial organs now get the vapors when confronting one of Al Gore's exaggerations. Gore, for some reason, is a liar while Reagan was just a marvelous storyteller. I am not going to sit here and defend Gore's exaggerations. I wish he wouldn't make them. I wish he did not say he had been to the Texas fires when he hadn't. . . . I wish he had not compared his dog's prescription plan to his mother-in-law's. I wish he had been a bit more modest about his role in developing the Internet or, way back, in describing his Vietnam War experience.
In fact, Gore never claimed that he "had been to the Texas fires" -- a reference to wildfires that broke out in Parker County, Texas, in 1998. Gore simply stated that he went "down to Texas" at the time the fires broke out -- not to the site of the actual fires, as Cohen implied.

Riiight. And Bush and Cheney never connected Saddam Husseim to Al Qaida. This is absurd from Media Matters. They can not be serious on this point. And in fact, Cohen never even mentions James Lee Witt. Wanker of the Day material? You gotta be kidding.

And the rest of the Media Matters post is similar overblown overreaction.

Media Matters is an essential organization and Atrios is an essential blogger. But they are better when they work on REAL problems in the Media, instead of overblowing nonissues.

< No Verdict in Day 5 of Scooter Libby Deliberations | Dems and Iraq: What Tom Andrews Said >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Extremism (none / 0) (#1)
    by Walter in Denver on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:20:14 PM EST
    Overblown reporting by Media Matters? Say it isn't so!

    It is not the norm (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:36:01 PM EST
    and it hurts them when they do do it, as in this case.

    Parent
    Well Cohen (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:56:10 PM EST
    should have devoted a tad more of his piece to pointing out how he himself contributed to Gore's negative image. He invites Gore into the fray, then promises that he will be shredded again.

    Very supportive.

    Disagreed (none / 0) (#4)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:25:28 PM EST
    Cohen was an enthusiastic foot soldier in the War on Gore, along with Dumb*ss Dowd and pretty much the entire Liberal Media. Now that Gore's become a genuine movie star, sure, they're all eager to pretend that they liked him all along.

    BWAAAAMP, too late. Sorry, they covered the battle for the Leader of the Free World with all the gravity of a 16-year old MySpace Homecoming Court flame war. And guess what? 600,000 and counting have died as a direct result of their bullsh*t and the state of the Republic makes Terri Schiavo look healthy. Spare me the "nobody could have foreseen..." dodge. Plenty of us Little People knew what a disaster Bush would be, and I'm sure the Beltway Elites did, too. They just didn't care.

    But if they want to wash the blood off their hands, they'd better start explaining why they deliberately chose to stop fulfilling any of the roles that led to Constitutional protection of the press in the first place. And it had better be a good reason.

    I can resist (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:41:09 PM EST
    Gore simply stated that he went "down to Texas" at the time the fires broke out -- not to the site of the actual fires, as Cohen implied.

    Wow, that's parsing at its best.

    Poor Al, born on a mountain top in Tennessee,
    Went to live in DC when he was only three.
    And never came back, no sirree.

    Modeled for Love story, invented the Internet..and now has decided that he will save the world while jetting around dumping tons of CO2 in the atmosphere he claims to love...

    Wants to be Pres i dent, but never will be
    So he dresses in Black like Johnnnnnyy..
    Cash that. Movie stars.

    Algore, algore... king of the Global Warming Frontier..

    With apologies to Davy Crocket, Granny, Jeb, Jethro and a special mention and hug for Ellie Mae... sigh.....

    Parent

    Hyuk (none / 0) (#6)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:43:37 PM EST
    Spoken like a true RNC presstitute.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    he managed almost every rethuglican lie in that one.

    Parent
    Since the subject is Algore (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:49:27 PM EST
    Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

    "If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."

    Amen brother.

    Link

    Just out of curiosity (none / 0) (#8)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:01:32 PM EST
    How does the size of the average house compare to Al's?

    Parent
    And Bush says he's a Christian (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:36:04 PM EST
    When he turned Iraq into a senseless bloodbath, supports torture and tyranny where it suits his needs, his stupidity has killed thousands, ruined millions, and will cost trillions.  And this is infinitely more hypocritically evil that whatever amount of energy the Gore house uses.  One is murder, the other is speeding.  The pathetic desperation and intellectual dishonesty is in full bloom.  Don't complain about splinters when there's a log in your eye.

    BTW, the suggestion (which underlies all of this) that there's something insidious about Gore's environmental activities is so without logic or fact it's off the charts nuts.  The only motivation that can be attributed to him is concern.  He was famous before, he was rich before.  Your bizarre refusal to acknowledge and take into consideration the overwhelming financial self-interest of those in the opposing camp is telling.  It tells me you are not to be taken seriously in the least.

    Parent

    algore runs in better circles (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:46:39 PM EST
    Dadler - There is nothing especially evil about what Gore is doing. He is just being Gore. Everyone in his circle has homes like this. Everyone flys in private jets.

    And then they lecture you and me and the rest of us.

    The word is "hypocrite." They want to tell everyone what to do because they are the blesssed ones, so they have that right.

    Your defese of them, layered on top of your huckstering for biofuels is funny. But, if you want to carry their water, please do so.

    Parent

    Be that as it may (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:06:32 PM EST
    Dadler - There is nothing especially evil about what Gore is doing. He is just being Gore. Everyone in his circle has homes like this. Everyone flys in private jets.

    And then they lecture you and me and the rest of us.

    the laws of thermodynamics do not appear to be changing. I'm sure it's very satisfying, in a childish sort of way, to excuse your lack of concern in the most pointless way imaginable. I, on the other hand, convinced my mom to buy a Prius, and set my computer to go into low-power standby much more often. Amazingly enough, neither of us are suffering the economic hardship that conservatives claim inevitably results from a lower-energy lifestyle, probably because she doesn't like buying gas and I don't like having a hot room.

    I'm sure an executive at Exxon just lost five bucks, though.

    Parent

    scar (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 07:00:30 AM EST
    A low energy life style? Hmmm. I drive a vehicle that averages 26 MPH city/highway (that's actual), have spent a ton of money (and sweat) puting extra insulation in the attic, have replaced all the applicances/heating-cooling in the house with the most energy efficent available and the light bulbs with the low wattage flourscents.

    I also grow a lot of my own veggies, can and freeze them and let a great deal of my yard go back to "native grasses."

    Does that make me a better person? Nope. Does it make me someone who runs around lecturing others?
    Nope. Does it make me feel better? Only when I see my utility bill and food bill.

    scar, write this down and keep it. The current push re global warming is the politics of fear. It has almost nothing to do with science and is being promoted by people such as Gore and the "Hollywood Stars" who wouldn't pour water on your shoes if your feet were on fire. You're being used.

    Parent

    jim (none / 0) (#14)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 07:13:53 AM EST
      I am in general agreement with your views concerning the motives and "genuineness" of most celebrities who advocate for political causes.

      However, that shallow people exploit issues for personal glory and publicity while behaving in ways that amply demonstrate their lack of true commitment does NOT make the issue any less important or mean that the position advocated by the celebrities is wrong.

       

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:09:16 AM EST
    To me, the issue is this. What we have now is a lot of fear being sold as science, and we may very well spend a ton of money, hurt a lot of people for no reason.

    "The Cooling World": From Newsweek, April 28, 1975."

    The science is too uncertain, and if we have "30 years" as the proponents like to say, I think we have time for several years of study and debate.

    To set public policy based on the howls of spoiled "stars" and out of work politicans strikes me as absolutey insane.

    Parent

    off topic (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:21:56 AM EST
    If you are going to talk about Algore, (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    you have to include "global warming." Without it he would be just another ex-VP.

    Parent
    Groundhog Day (none / 0) (#39)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    The science is too uncertain, and if we have "30 years" as the proponents like to say, I think we have time for several years of study and debate.

    Just like we need "more study and debate" on whether or not pot is harmful. Don't you guys ever come up with new talking points?

    Parent

    scar - Please keep yoir claims straight. (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:47:16 PM EST
    You know that I have called for drug law rationalization time and again.

    Now, putting that aside, why is the Left frightened that we should have a public debate?

    Parent

    ppj, what would you rather... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Electa on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:18:34 PM EST
    fear being sold as science or fear being used to invade Iraq, kill millions and cost trillions?

    Parent
    electa, The latter is a political (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:06:30 PM EST
    claim that you make. But if it were true, I'd rather have it.

    Why?

    Because if you debase science, you are harming western civilization. You are destroying the base for the Enlightenment. The scientific method. The very touchstone that gave us knowledge and from that sprung Liberty.

    Do you remember eugenics? Fake science was used there. Low IQ? Sterilization. Get the point??

    To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest."

    Link

    - Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

    More??

    But what kind of person, what kind of scientist, is Dr Stephen Schneider?

    Firstly, Schneider was not always promoting the idea of Global warming. Up to about 1978, Schneider was warning the world of an impending Global Cooling, leading to the next Ice Age !

    Before Global Warming became the politically correct scientific fashion of the 1990s, the reverse situation existed in the 1970s, where it had become a scientific article of faith that the Ice Age was about to happen. Even the US National Academy of Sciences adopted this view.

    "There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling
    could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."

    Let's cut to the chase

    The scientific question of relevance is what do we expect such an increase to do? The answer, most assuredly, is not to be arrived at by a poll of scientists--especially of scientists who do not work on this question. The issue of consensus is, in this respect, extremely malign, especially when the consensus is merely claimed though not established. However, the whole idea of consensus is problematic.

    With respect to science, the assumption behind consensus is that science is a source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists. Of course, science is not primarily a source of authority. Rather, it is a particularly effective approach to inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign.
    When in 1988 Newsweek announced that all scientists agreed about global warming, this should have been a red flag of warning. Among other things, global warming is such a multifaceted issue that agreement on all or many aspects would be unreasonable.

    With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics.



    Parent
    Lemme get this straight pal..... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:48:26 AM EST
    Global warming is the politics of fear, but the war on terror isn't?

    I think both issues have fear mongers, but the threat of severe climate change (whether man-made or natural) is a lot more serious than the threat of terrorism, imo.  

    Parent

    The difference is terrorism is real. (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    Remember 9/11? USS Cole? etc., etc.

    Globabl Warming may be real. But no one knows why, for sure, and no one knows, for sure, that man can do anything about it.

    algore and his happy band have you snickered.

    Parent

    Not me babe...... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    I ain't snickered....global warming isn't one of my top issues.  My beloved planet earth will be fine, it's the human beings who may be f*cked.  That being said, it makes sense to pollute less, I don't think it makes sense to surrender freedom and wage endless war over 20-40k assorted nutjobs.

    "One day mother nature will shake off the human race like a bad case of fleas."

    - G. Carlin

    Parent

    hohohhihahahah (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    Does it make me someone who runs around lecturing others?
    Nope.

    That is about all you ever do, ppj.

    Parent

    The real question is (none / 0) (#40)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:56:01 PM EST
    Are you equally up in arms about the fact that taxpayers are paying Dick Cheney's electric bill at the Vice President's mansion? You know, the one that had an $186,000 electric bill in 2001?

    Parent
    Good grief scar. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:08:51 PM EST
    No more so than when we paid Algore's.... or any of those in the past.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#41)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    How on earth am I being used? I'm a biology major, and I've seen the evidence for and against climate change, and as far as I'm concerned, the 'ayes' have it. Not one of my professors doubts its existence, and all of them are extremely intelligent. I don't think they're secretly taking marching orders from Darryl Hannah, either.

    Parent
    A lot of extremely intelligent people (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:19:17 PM EST
    also believe that God created heaven and earth in seven days. Does intelliegence make them correct?

    BTW - Did your professors also believe in global cooling??

    And since you have made up your moind, can you explain this?

    It is well established, for example, from historical accounts, that a thousand
    years ago, well before the onset of industrialisation, there was - at least in
    Europe - what has become known as the mediaeval warm period, when
    temperatures were probably at least as high as, if not higher than, they are
    today.
    Going back even further, during the Roman empire, it may have been even
    warmer. There is archaeological evidence that in Roman Britain, vineyards
    existed on a commercial scale at least as far north as Northamptonshire

    Remember. There were no evileeee cars around. Or any degree of industralization...

    If you can't, ask your professors.

    Parent

    more from the wrongwinger smear machine (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:18:00 AM EST
    Sailor (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    Anybody besides me see the note TL left yesterday telling everyone to quit insulting each other??

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    Jim (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:41:12 AM EST
    Olberman shot down your story with extreme prejudice. The fools in your link didn't even check with the power company as to just how his bills were structured. Gore spends more in order to use less carbon. Plus the place is more than just a house. It's a multiple use structure. Business and home.

    So just cast your quivering arms skyward and shout "A-MEN brother!" while the puppetmasters revel in your fanatic devotion to character assassination instead of issues. Good boy.

    Smoke and mirrors (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 07:54:43 AM EST
    Didn't see the show, so kind of hard to comment, but here is a few facts.

    No matter how you cut it, he is using 20 times what the average person uses. Now, let's look at a few facts.

    TVA has a green program where you can "pretend" that you are using green power. Actually, whatever "green" power that is produced is just put into the grid, and used by everyone. And when the wind stops, you use "regular" power like everyone. To do that you pay an additional 2.6 cents per KWH that you designate.

    Did Keith O say how many "green" KWH's the algore actually purchased?

    Actually, as I have noted before, wind power, because it can not be depended on, requires a 100% back up of the regular system. This overbuild is very costly, and the use of various resources and destruction of the environment when the wind power is built, may actually cause more harm than good.

    So it is all smoke and mirrors, Che. Have another koolaid and enjoy the ride.

    BTW - Remember the Snail Darter? The fish that the was supposed to be living in this just one river....and new dams to generate power would kill them?....turns out it lives all over.. in the meantime the dams were replaced with coal and oil power plants, the environment was damaged and the cost doubled.

    Yesssir, these smart environmental wackos are just so smart... Guess you have to destroy the environment to save it...

    Can I have an Amen??

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:21:35 AM EST
    well, it ain't much of a topic... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:28:37 AM EST
     and if people find tangents which deviate from it more compelling, what's the problem?

    that's what open threads or for (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:02:31 AM EST
    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    In case you haven't noted Sailor has a Jones for anything I write.

    Parent
    Yeah, Jim (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    It's all smoke and mirrors. Nothing to see here. I guess if I was using that much energy I would not be so inclined to warn of global warming either. So he's either stupid, as Jim infers, or he's well aware of what his power usage is. Let's see, who do I trust more? Jim or Al Gore?
    I'm going to vett your snail darter claims.

    Che (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    Please do vett the Snail Darter story.

    It was the Great Grand Daddy of the endangered species act, and the legal fight was so expensive that building dams ceased.

    BTW - How do you see me inferring Algore is stupid? On the contrary, I think he is very snmart, and is using this as an issue to get back in front of the public.

    My question as to how many KWH's he had purchased is because you buy them in 150 KWH blocks at $4.00 a block. So, how many did Algore buy???

    So you can spend $4.00 and claim to be using "green" electricty.

    Parent

    Tell (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:06:12 PM EST
    us again about the "Marxist theology" i.e., commie plot, that all these researchers are apparently in on.

    Now, thats a cogent scientific hypothesis.

    When you manage to remember (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    that I was talking about the selling/buying of "credits" per the Kyoto Treaty, which is a political act,  I will be glad to.

    I do maintain that some researchers have an agenda because it keeps money flowing to them. I hope you won't be surprised by that concept.

    But since you want me to explain something I never said, I don't feel obliged.

    Ta Ta and have a nice day.

    Parent

    Well here is what I found, (none / 0) (#32)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:10:18 PM EST
    since there were NO google results for Jim's claim. But I did find this

    Apparently Jim's term "it lives all over", means the tributaries of the Tennessee River, the darter's original breeding ground (ironically Gore's home state). The only reason the darter "lives all over" (the Tennessee Valley) is because of the very repopulation programs inititiated by the Koolaid drinking environmentalists trying to save it from Jim's energy-addicted friends. The species was downgraded to "threatened" (by the govt, not the koolaid drinkers) to facilitate the continuation of the rape of the Tennessee Valley.

    Looks like more lies from the lying liars that tell them. Please produce some links to back your claim, and possibly reacquire some credibility.

    Che strikes out again. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:51:43 PM EST
    Well, you're great at making claims. Maybe you should have read a little further....

    Let's see a link.

    Google didn't work? Here's one that took me less than ten seconds. Maybe you need some instructions on how to work a computer.

    BTW - It proves my point, so your typical insulting manner just redefines you. In otherwords, you are flat out wrong.

    Link


    From a common sense point of view, despite the tactics that may have been employed by the TVA, it was simply impossible for many people to accept that a three-inch fish that nobody had ever heard of, and few people cared about, would stop a project that had displaced hundreds of families and cost the American public over $100 million--especially since the dam was basically finished.

    The snail darter litigation was one of several legal maneuvers showing the efficacy of this approach to environmental activism; a slightly later dam project of the TVA was halted by this approach using a different endangered species and eventually dismantled.

    Now, the coup de grace:

    Before the closure of the gates of Tellico Dam, numerous snail darters were transplanted into the Hiwassee River. These may have survived; in any event, the snail darter has been found in other locations. The Little Tennessee River was never the sole environment in which these fish lived as had been alleged in the suit.

    The snail darter was taken off the endangered species list in the 1980s.

    Channel what I'm thinking, Che! ;-)

    Parent

    typical insulting?? (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:54:26 PM EST
    Do you read what you write?
    Google didn't work? Here's one that took me less than ten seconds. Maybe you need some instructions on how to work a computer.

    BTW - It proves my point, so your typical insulting manner just redefines you. In otherwords, you are flat out wrong.

    I don't know how you do it ppj, must be that poker face.

    Parent

    squeak, che said he couldn't (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 06:37:30 PM EST
    google it, not me.

    Che claimed it was the environmental wackos who saved the snail darter.

    I just provided a link to and a quote from Wikipedia that proves that the snail darter was never threatened. It lived in other places.

    But you didn't read that. All you did was try and smear. Well, we know you never let facts stand in your way.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    Have a nice day.


    Parent

    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#46)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 07:51:17 PM EST
    And yet another personal attack.

    Well, you're great at making claims. Maybe you should have read a little further....
    Let's see a link.

    Google didn't work? Here's one that took me less than ten seconds. Maybe you need some instructions on how to work a computer.



    Parent
    Sailor, why do you complain about what I write? (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:26:26 PM EST
    But say nothing about what I was responding to.

    Che had written:

    Looks like more lies from the lying liars that tell them. Please produce some links to back your claim, and possibly reacquire some credibility

    You are pretty transparent, sailor.

    BTW - Proved Che wrong.

    Have a nice day, old firend.


    Parent

    Right out of Terry and the Pirates (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:11:27 PM EST


    wow, jim (none / 0) (#37)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    went totally off the deep-end today. that he actually appears to believe all the lies told about al gore, by such as richard cohen, maureen dowd, frank rich, hannity, limbaugh, et al, speaks more to his lack of intellectual and analytical depth, than to any failings of mr. gore.

    the environmental concerns raised by mr. gore, for the past 30 years, are real, at least according to real scientists, not the hucksters employed by the energy companies to "rebut" them.

    it isn't that "they don't know the cause of global warming", they do, in part. however, science tends to be a tad more complex than political sound bite writing; it has to deal with actual facts, supported by actual data, sound bite writing doesn't. neither, apparently, does the writing of columns for newspapers.

    it seems that most of the world's environmental scientists agree with mr. gore, with regards to the premise of "an inconvenient truth", as opposed to the energy companies. if i have to pick one or the other, i believe i'll go with the scientists and mr. gore.

    cpinva, if there is anything that I can count on (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    is that the Left has absolutely nooooo sense of humor. Everything is sooooooooooo serious and they must be taken soooooooooo seriously. And noooooooo one dareeeeeee make funnnnnn of one of their demi Gods.

    And because of this the Left has a tendancy to try and reduce complex subjects into one liners. (Makes it easier for the "stars" to remember their lines.)

    For instance, no where have I said that I think protection of the envornment is wrong. Matter of fact, if you had read my comment, you might note where I point out that the construction of wind power might do more damage than the good it provides because it also requires a backup construction to carry the power when the wind stops. And it is a given that it will.

    That's all I said. Stop and think these things through. The simplest solutions often carry hidden costs and penalties.

    But instead of that, the environmental wackos jump on the wrong conclusions and do the wrong thing.
    And rather than having science lead the way, they choose movie stars and politicans. That by itself should make you suspicious.

    As for Global Warming, when you start looking at the temperature ups and downs, nothing makes sense. And yet you are willing to believe Algore..

    Link to reality.

    Gore's credibility is damaged early in the film when he tells the audience that, by simply looking at Antarctic ice cores with the naked eye, one can see when the American Clean Air Act was passed. Dr. Ian Clark, professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa (U of O) responds, "This is pure fantasy unless the reporter is able to detect parts per billion changes to chemicals in ice." Air over the United States doesn't even circulate to the Antarctic before mixing with most of the northern, then the southern, hemisphere air, and this process takes decades. Clark explains that even far more significant events, such as the settling of dust arising from the scouring of continental shelves at the end of ice ages, are undetectable in ice cores by an untrained eye.

    Let's face it. Algore just can't keep from making things up.

    And he's your leader??

    I gues your also big on Murtha...


    Parent

    cpinva (none / 0) (#38)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    The difference between pundits from the so called "left", and indeed why Dowd and now Rich are associated with wacky liberals, is because they, unlike their RW counterparts, critique everything, not just their perceived opponents.