Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Early reviews of Al Gore's new book, "Assault on Reason," indicate Gore defines "assault" as "media and free speech the government doesn't control"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
103
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

878 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 May 2007 at 1:03 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



103 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-05-23 1:02:06 PM  
FTFA:

"[Gore's] basic theme seems to be: if the left isn't winning in the marketplace of ideas, there can't possibly be anything wrong with their ideas. It must be the marketplace itself that is "broken," and the left needs to use the power of government to fix it--in both senses of the word "fix." "
 
Rain-Monkey
2007-05-23 1:02:30 PM  
Meh. An Op-Ed piece by Robert Tracinski.
 
This Is Bold Text [TotalFark]
2007-05-23 1:05:07 PM  
[image from trevoroldak.com too old to be available]
 
chaddsfarkprefect
2007-05-23 1:10:12 PM  
Rain-Monkey
Meh. An Op-Ed piece by Robert Tracinski.

Is it Meh (lolz) because you disagree with im?

From TFA:
The specific form of control Gore favors is indicated when he complains about "the increasing concentration of ownership by an even smaller number of large corporations that now effectively control the majority of television programming in America."

I thought there was no conspiracy like this, according to the left. Or has Al Gore become too left, even for the majority?
 
Hideously Gigantic Smurf
2007-05-23 1:10:49 PM  
Don't you mean "early review"... As in "ONE review"... subby?
 
scratched
2007-05-23 1:12:21 PM  
Wow.
That article is "a piece of shiat."
I am sorry I "wasted" fifteen minutes of "my day" to read it. Hopefully the "author" falls off a "cliff."
 
KaponoFor3
2007-05-23 1:14:19 PM  
That election makes an appearance in Gore's whining complaint about his loss in a televised debate against George W. Bush: "[T]he controversy over my sighs in the first debate with George W. Bush created an impression on television that for many viewers outweighed whatever positive benefits I might have otherwise gained in the verbal combat of ideas and substance." I remember that debate, and I can tell you that Gore lost because his sighs gave him the impression of being the kind of condescending know-it-all who views a debate as "verbal combat" in which he shoves his preferred notions down the public's throat.

I think people can take from a "sigh" what they want to take from a "sigh". Just cause people didn't agree with Gore and thought his sighs might have shown us a little bit of his character doesn't mean they were wrong.
 
Poopspasm
2007-05-23 1:14:33 PM  
Well, if that's the case then I'm sure that we can agree on the problem without agreeing on the solution.

Make no mistake, reason is dying a slow death in the country. I personally think that logic courses should be a part of public school curriculum so that people grow up with the ability to seperate logical argument from crap.
 
Unright
2007-05-23 1:15:03 PM  
It's my opinion that people like Al Gore and Noam Chomsky make valid points when they compare Rupert Murdoch to William Randolph Hearst.

The article author is somewhat farcical in that he pretends that it's impossible for news companies to mislead it's audience.
 
Skleenar
2007-05-23 1:15:03 PM  
Ah.

I knew there was a bit of spin in that headline.

How does a majority in both houses of the US Congress and historically low approval ratings of the GOP president equate with "losing at the marketplace of ideas"?
 
Onkel Buck
2007-05-23 1:19:25 PM  
"media Machiavellis"--that's a veiled reference to Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch and Bush political advisor Karl Rove, the twin hobgoblins of the left

Anyone else catch that?
 
HansBlix
2007-05-23 1:19:31 PM  
Nothing like an unbiased review of Al Gore's book from a Republican think-tank.
 
FlameDuck
2007-05-23 1:22:59 PM  
That headline doesn't make any sense, I wonder if the submitter is drunk. Robert Tracinski on the other hand seems to be sober enough to do a mental double flip with triple twist.
 
Dr. Farkenstein
2007-05-23 1:23:35 PM  
Just cause people didn't agree with Gore and thought his sighs might have shown us a little bit of his character doesn't mean they were wrong.

Doesn't mean they're right, either. What it seems to indicate to some is "I can say whatever I want and it's my opinion against ManBearPig and the Left, so I win" even though Gore has presented the case for his views while his critics haven't got much other than their dicks in their hands.
 
Lionel Mandrake
2007-05-23 1:24:16 PM  
A review from Real Clear Politics, based on "excerpts of Gore's book published in TIME."

Less than useless.
 
Blues_X
2007-05-23 1:24:54 PM  
Here are more open-minded gems from the same author:

* Wednesday, May 23: Al Gore's Insolent Assault on Reason
* Friday, May 18: What are the Right's Priorities?
* Wednesday, April 18: The Killers We Should Really Worry About Are the Jihadis
* Thursday, April 12: Is Climatology a Science?
* Thursday, April 05: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
* Friday, March 23: What Al Gore Really Wants
* Friday, March 09: Taxing Us for Breathing
* Thursday, March 01: Why Giuliani is the Top Candidate
* Saturday, February 17: The Left Turns Evidence Against Iran into Evidence Against America
* Thursday, January 18: The Right's Real 'Enemy at Home'
* Thursday, January 04: To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran
* Thursday, December 07: Captain Obvious to the Rescue
* Saturday, November 25: 'Peace with Honor' in Iraq?
* Saturday, November 04: "D" Stands for "Defeat"
* Tuesday, October 24: The Battle Between Achievement and Self-Doubt
* Wednesday, October 11: Republicans Back on the Offensive
* Wednesday, September 27: The Democratic Party Adds Nothing to the National Debate
* Saturday, September 16: What We Have Learned in 2006
* Wednesday, September 13: What We Have Learned From Iraq
* Tuesday, September 12: The Immediate Lessons of September 11
* Friday, September 01: The Unlearned Lesson of Katrina
* Tuesday, August 29: The Secular Right
* Tuesday, August 22: We Can't Continue Waiting on Events
* Monday, August 14: Five Minutes to Midnight
* Tuesday, August 01: Iran's Strategy Is Crudely Obvious--So Why Can't We Fight It?
* Wednesday, July 19: What Part of 'War' Don't We Understand?
* Friday, July 14: The War Comes to Us
* Tuesday, July 04: Independence Day's Lessons for the Conflict with Iran
* Wednesday, June 21: The Suicide Bomb Morality
* Wednesday, June 07: Al Gore is a Brave Truth Teller?
* Thursday, May 25: Bush's September 10 Approval Ratings
* Friday, March 03: Publish or Perish: The Lessons of the Cartoon Jihad
 
scratched
2007-05-23 1:24:56 PM  
HansBlix: Nothing like an unbiased review of Al Gore's book from a Republican think-tank.

The best part is that the whole tirade is based around a three page excerpt. Doesn't look like the guy's even read the book.

FTFA: Judging from the excerpts of Gore's book published in TIME...
 
ryarger
2007-05-23 1:25:14 PM  
Onkel Buck: Rupert Murdoch and Bush political advisor Karl Rove, the twin hobgoblins of the left

Anyone else catch that?

Yes, that's accurate. It's like saying that Hillary Clinton is a bogeyman of the right.
 
vernonFL
2007-05-23 1:28:58 PM  
This leftist conspiracy theory--the view that "big corporations" control everything-

Everyone knows the Jews run the media.
 
KaponoFor3
2007-05-23 1:29:36 PM  
Dr. Farkenstein: Doesn't mean they're right, either.

Well, I'm not advancing they are right -- just advancing that when Gore says they are "wrong", that he is in fact wrong.

while his critics haven't got much other than their dicks in their hands.

You must not be talking to intelligent critics then
 
vernonFL
2007-05-23 1:31:22 PM  
Rupert Murdoch and Bush political advisor Karl Rove, the twin hobgoblins of the left


Both Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove manipulate, spin, and downright lie for their 'team'. They are really good at it. Its sleazy and dishonest, but both sides do it.
 
Dr. Farkenstein
2007-05-23 1:34:15 PM  
You must not be talking to intelligent critics then

Please enlighten me. Please present a cogent, reasoned counter-argument to Gore's case.
 
KaponoFor3
2007-05-23 1:35:39 PM  
Dr. Farkenstein: Please enlighten me. Please present a cogent, reasoned counter-argument to Gore's case.

What, about the sighs? About what part of his "case"?
 
chaddsfarkprefect
2007-05-23 1:36:36 PM  
From TFA:A respect for reason requires a commitment to liberty above all else.


Trite, but that's my biggest problem with the Global Warming argument.
 
Dr. Farkenstein
2007-05-23 1:38:49 PM  
KaponoFor3

Please present a cogent, reasoned counter-argument to "Assault On Reason."
 
Dr. Farkenstein
2007-05-23 1:39:57 PM  
Then do the same with "An Inconvenient Truth."
 
Dr. Farkenstein
2007-05-23 1:40:40 PM  
Finally, describe the universe and give five examples.
 
KaponoFor3
2007-05-23 1:41:26 PM  
Dr. Farkenstein: Please present a cogent, reasoned counter-argument to "Assault On Reason."

I haven't read the book, I wouldnt try to present a counter-argument to something I haven't read. That would be rather foolish.

Then do the same with "An Inconvenient Truth."

You ask many questions, no? I agree with an Inconvenient Truth insofar as it says humans are likely responsible for accelerating global warming, but the truly difficult question remains what do we do about it.
 
KaponoFor3
2007-05-23 1:42:06 PM  
Dr. Farkenstein: Finally, describe the universe and give five examples.

Hahah... at least you have a sense of humor. I think.
 
L.B. Jeffries
2007-05-23 1:46:39 PM  
FTA In reality, a genuine respect for reason starts with an absolute respect for the mind and judgment of the individual.

Bull. Shiat. I live in America. I watch obese people stuff McDonald's burgers down their mouths and complain about how they're treated. I watch parents try to shield their children from the hardships of life so they can remain kids forever and as a result, they themselves remain parents forever. I watch people go to jail for smoking a joint while people drink beer on commercials.

The last person on earth whose 'reason' I respect is the individuals.
 
Beast_Ice
2007-05-23 1:46:59 PM  
Gore's complaint about the sighs, is about the coverage of the sighs by media. It is possible that some people would have been negatively influenced by the sighs anyways especially among those already disliking Gore. However the point is the media's coverage of the debate will effect how people perceive the debate went including those who actually watched the debate to a lesser extent. Most of the media discussion was about how Gore's sighs make him appear arrogant and how, surprisingly well Bush did compared to the low expectations of his performance. There was little discussion of the points made in the debate or fact checking of statements. Hell they didn't even discuss the statements of Bushes that motivated the sighs, some of which I at the time thought that a sigh was pretty restrained reaction to.

/Why use a splitscreen when only one is talking anyways?
 
ComicBookGuy
2007-05-23 1:50:41 PM  
Poopspasm: Make no mistake, reason is dying a slow death in the country. I personally think that logic courses should be a part of public school curriculum so that people grow up with the ability to seperate logical argument from crap.

I think the neocons would oppose teaching logic.
 
Digeratus
2007-05-23 1:52:26 PM  
Dr. Farkenstein: Finally, describe the universe and give five examples.

Where is Stephen Hawking when you need him?
 
Car_Ramrod
2007-05-23 1:57:33 PM  
KaponoFor3
Well, I'm not advancing they are right -- just advancing that when Gore says they are "wrong", that he is in fact wrong.

When does he say they're "wrong"? He just says that they're focusing on the packaging, and not the content.

Basically, Beast_Ice said what I was going to say, and in a much better way.
 
Dr. Farkenstein
2007-05-23 1:59:02 PM  
Finally, describe the universe and give five examples.

KaponoFor3: Hahah... at least you have a sense of humor. I think.

Nobody likes a grumpy liberal. I think we can all agree on that.
 
Hobodeluxe
2007-05-23 2:05:33 PM  
loved her definition of "caging" as just a direct mail term.
what they would do is target black and other minority/poor mostly democratic voters and even servicemembers.

it's illegal under the 1965 Voting Rights Act
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-05-23 2:05:52 PM  
Beast_Ice: It is possible that some people would have been negatively influenced by the sighs anyways especially among those already disliking Gore.

If Gore is such a genius policy wonk, he should have had a better handle on his image. He had to have been aware that people saw him as Mr. Phony Overprivileged Plasticman going up against Bush, Mr. Regular Guy. Why else did he keep playing with his image in the middle of the campaign (anyone else remember the disappearing/reappearing brown suits and all that Alpha Male crap?).

So with so much on the line, he sighs, rolls his eyes and does the condescending bit to the hilt, then whines that the microphone wasn't supposed to be on.

Two possibilities:

1. He's not so smart after all.
2. He really DOES think he's some kind of Superior Being and couldn't disguise his contempt for the the brainless yammering of the Great Unwashed before him.

Fair or unfair, controlling your image when you're on camera is part of being a politician. I didn't see Gore shed any tears when the media went out of its way to broadcast every misspoken word by Dan Quayle or Bush 41 to paint them as idiots. But now he's whining that sighing on camera and cementing his reputation as an arrogant prick.
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2007-05-23 2:06:14 PM  
[image from nndb.com too old to be available]
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-05-23 2:07:46 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: But now he's whining that sighing on camera and cementing his reputation as an arrogant prick.

Pardon me: Meant to say he's whining about the cameras and mikes that were supposed to be off when he has no one to blame but himself for sighing and cementing his reputation as an arrogant prick. My type fu is weak today.
 
Blathering Idjut
2007-05-23 2:09:23 PM  
Gore sighing = annoying and pretentious.

Bush picking nose, drooling on himself and generally coming off like an utter and complete moron = folksy.

Got it.
 
Dr. Farkenstein
2007-05-23 2:11:31 PM  
DIA

What, did veedeevadeevoodee call in sick today?
 
atomsmoosher
2007-05-23 2:12:48 PM  
I DNRTFA, but here's the Time excerpt of Gore's book.

It is a bit whiney, but mostly because I believe Al lives in his own echo chamber. Basically, he uses a lot of words to say that the Internet is the last bastion of True Free Speech and hints at the dangers of control over the intertubes. Again, nothing really new.

He repeats the same crap you've heard before about the supremecy of TV (and to a lesser extent, radio) over print journalism, which he depicts as more of a two-way street. And that mass media is a tool to sway you poor dupes out there that aren't Al Gore. (Of course, Al used mass media to make his case for the environment -- and that was also a one-way discussion.*)

Of course, he doesn't really mention that the decline in print readership is largely made up for in pixel readership -- and that newspapers were never the two-way street Al described. Yes, too many Americans get their opinions from what they see on TV, but that's been the case for 50 years now. But Al's got a messiah complex to feed, so we must realize it is now an emergency.

The fact is, news is less, not more, biased than it was in recent history, especially in print. Unfortunately, the biases were out in the open and, therefore, a bit easier to spot. Reporters also used to ask difficult questions and tried to scoop each other. Now, they generally just ask the same questions repeatedly.

So, my point is the article submitter linked to probably sucks, but Al Gore also sucks. And we should never forget that.

* Agrees with the premise of global warming, not so much the manner it was delivered or the general hype that trumps reasoned discussion.
 
flaEsq
2007-05-23 2:17:53 PM  
Really Crappy Politics doesn't like a Gore book? Color me suprised and blow me, down.
 
Car_Ramrod
2007-05-23 2:17:57 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin
If Gore is such a genius policy wonk, he should have had a better handle on his image.

What does one thing have to do with another? Bush is wonderful with public relations, but horrible as a president. Gore has a tremendous understanding of policy, but was bad with his public image. Just because Clinton was great at both, doesn't mean there's a connection.

But now he's whining that sighing on camera and cementing his reputation as an arrogant prick.

I'm pretty sure he's not "whining", he's just giving an example of the (unfortunate) preferance of Americans in the political realm of style over substance. Are you saying we shouldn't listen to anyone's message, and instead just focus on how they're delivering it?

BTW, where does this reputation of "arrogant prick" come from? It can't be from this incident alone. Does someone speaking about issues without dumbing it down reveal someone as an "arrogant prick"?
 
mistersite
2007-05-23 2:18:11 PM  
KaponoFor3: I haven't read the book, I wouldnt try to present a counter-argument to something I haven't read. That would be rather foolish.

It would be, wouldn't it. Funny that someone who did just that is given even a small amount of respect by those on the right simply because he's rooting for the Red Team.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-05-23 2:21:11 PM  
Car_Ramrod: BTW, where does this reputation of "arrogant prick" come from? It can't be from this incident alone.

Bingo!
 
FlashLV
2007-05-23 2:22:49 PM  
Manbearpig!!

[image from morethings.com too old to be available]
 
Car_Ramrod
2007-05-23 2:32:26 PM  
atomsmoosher

Al lives in his own echo chamber. Basically, he uses a lot of words to say that the Internet is the last bastion of True Free Speech and hints at the dangers of control over the intertubes. [...] Of course, he doesn't really mention that the decline in print readership is largely made up for in pixel readership.

So...you agree that online news is replacing print news, and thus should be protected to ensure free speech? Glad you think Gore is right.

The fact is, news is less, not more, biased than it was in recent history, especially in print. Unfortunately, the biases were out in the open and, therefore, a bit easier to spot. Reporters also used to ask difficult questions and tried to scoop each other. Now, they generally just ask the same questions repeatedly.

How is that a "fact"? Furthermore, why is it "unfortunate" that biases are becoming easier to spot? Would you rather bias exist without people's knowledge? Finally, isn't the complacency of modern reporters a form of bias? By basically regurgitating whatever those in power (be they D's or R's) tell them, aren't they creating a bias in favor of those in power?

Al Gore also sucks. And we should never forget that.

What has he done that's so bad?

/Honestly doesn't understand the hatred towards Gore
 
Car_Ramrod
2007-05-23 2:36:01 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin
Car_Ramrod: BTW, where does this reputation of "arrogant prick" come from? It can't be from this incident alone.

Bingo!

So...you're advocating the position that performing poorly in one debate from a pure PR standpoint is enough to "cement his reputation as an arrogant prick"? Do you completely judge everyone on first impressions alone?
 
carmody
2007-05-23 2:38:53 PM  
Gore's right about media consolidation. Bad juju.
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come on, it's $10 a month, just do it.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.