Thursday, March 1, 2007
A Thought About Al Gore by James Novak
It really makes me wonder if Al Gore really believes that we're heading toward a global catastrophe. Time Magazine reports that he pays an electric bill of over 1,200 dollars a month. The former Vice President has made the claim that he offsets those uses of electricity by investing in projects that reduce energy consumption. If he really cared so much, why doesn't he live in a smaller house that uses up less power and still invest in those projects? Wouldn't that be the noble thing to do? Wouldn't that also be the environmentally friendly thing to do as well? Are we perhaps asking too much of Al Gore? He sure seems to be asking a lot of us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think its important that we realize that the best way to judge political stances is by attacking the personal lives of the politicians proposing them. After all, American politics are some sort of theater, and politicians are celebrities about whose lives we should certainly care.
I personally think that talking about Al Gore's electric bill definetely throws dirt on his whole stance. And if you're a conservative I know you're with me.
Down with the hypocritical liberals! They don't even want to confront the real issues!
This is a little more in depth than just some personal attack.
I didn't say something like, "Al Gore is promiscuous, therefore we shouldn't take him seriously on Global Warming."
He's telling people to live simpler lives in order to save more energy, while he's doing the exact opposite. I'm sorry if that doesn't give you pause at all.
Let's say I said that there was going to be an earth quake that would cause California to sink into the pacific ocean, and everyone should leave that state. At the same time I was making investments in real estate there, would starting having doubts about what I was saying?
The point of the article was to get people to think critically and take a second look at what Al Gore is saying. If he really feels the sky is falling, why isn't he truly doing as much as he can? Maybe he's just a narcissist who wants attention. Maybe he's some one who is looking for a political come back and is over-hyping an issue. Does that make you think at all?
If a Republican were caught exaggerating the terrorist threat in order to gain political clout or heck, even make some money, you would be upset. I don't think it's unfair to say "Hey, Al Gore might be lying about this so he can get some attention. And heck, there might not be as much to worry about at all."
I think republicans have been hyping up the "terrorist threat" since 2001, and extended it to Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now to Iran.
We can argue for the validity of a reaction to an attack on this country, and naturally following it to its source (Afghanistan). However, on closer examination you will find that even the entrance to Afghanistan was purposely belligerent and had nothing to do with protecting us. After all, you may realize that the CIA created Al Qaeda and brought them to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets there. You may also recall the US invading despite not having any evidence of terrorist presence in AFghanistan, even though Afghanistan would gladly have handed over any leaders upon proof, as they stated.
NOt only that, if you want to argue that our goal there was to remove a threatening regime, many leading figures of that regime as well as community elders had gotten together to try to reform it, while at the same time begging the US not to invade.
But ignore all those things. They are inconsequential. I don't think I have to explain the Iraq situation at all- the truth surfaced in good time as well.
Iran too, I don't think needs an explanation. All the arguments we have proposed for invasion are insubstantial and simply designed to gain us entrance into yet another country, and inflame anti-US sentiment worldwide, and make this country even less safe in turn.
Anyway, you are not even confronting the real issue of global warming. Al Gore is just one asshole that fought his way to the dirty top of the political mountain, but an issue is an issue and should be dealt with as such.
You can talk about his motives all you want, but yours are clearly evident,=.
Clearly my motives are clearly evident, as I explained them in my last post.
I think you should be reconsidering the preachings of a guy with a messiah complex when he clearly doesn't believe in what he's teaching.
You're right.
I should take a lesson from republicans, who don't stand for messianic preachings atl all. Republicans would never settle for a figurehead that hasn't said anything but rhetoric and ideology since he came into office.
Keep the facts for the liberals (and the slander)
I don't like Gore myself, for reasons of his POLICY, not his PERSONAL LIFE. If you can't see my argument....
Post a Comment