#76505 by MARIAM RUSSELL on 6/08 at 9:09 pm

My friend Stephen Lendman is not at all what you posit him to be, an unyielding and despairing pessimist, that would be you. Stephen is the most upbeat 72 year old I know, also one of the most intelligent.

His work, for those who wish to read some wonderfully done articles, especially on South American politics, can be found on OpEdNews.com as well as his own site.

Mariam, you are an obviously intelligent person and I wish you no ill. But from the first you have been against any attempts at progress in the area of global warming, have radiated an enormous negativism and are nothing less than an attempt to diminish any progress that might be made in something so important as to threaten our civilisation.

This seems an agendised attempt to me. I wonder, do you have children, family, anyone you love or loves you? Do you simply wish all to throw up their hands in despair and await the ending of everything? Are you in the pay of the oil and gas industry to posit such stumbling blocs to progress?

Global warming is science, all science has applications and is a tool to the minds of men. The effects of global warming can, and I believe will be, reversed. That there will be great cost, especially to those industries most responsible for the release of harmful by products to their profitability, is a given. That they send such as you here to combat any attempt to effect such change is a real possibility. Why else would you bother to display such almost pathological depression and ennui in the face of an effect we can change?

Youy are a one note poster, it would seem, and that note is a flat rather than a sharp…...Know full well that your attempts are useless, there is within man a quality those like you can never change. It is what took us from the trees to the moon. I hope you live well with your oil industry paychecks, really i do, as the alternative would seem to be that you are in need, serious need of anti-depressants.

Heres a couple of pros and cons, in the hope of stimulating debate :smiley:....

Also from Australia, and not designed to coerce you into suicide…Im just saying here…......

http://www.science.org.au/nova/054/054key.htm

Published by

Australian Academy
of Science
Sponsored by

KEY TEXT
Carbon currency – the credits and debits of carbon emissions trading
The Kyoto Protocol is the first step towards stabilising global emissions of carbon dioxide. But what is carbon emissions trading and will it limit the enhanced greenhouse effect?

Imagine you are a farmer in the Australian wheat belt. You need to plant trees to arrest salinity, erosion and soil acidification, but you can’t afford to – trees usually don’t earn you money for many years, if ever. Then, along comes a carbon broker. He offers to pay you money up-front to plant trees. In return, he wants a credit for the carbon such trees will store. You plant the trees and pocket the cash. As more and more farmers switch to trees, the wheat belt becomes more like a belt of living carbon.

That is the dream of some Australian farmers, foresters and entrepreneurs. They believe that a system of carbon emissions trading that allows the buying and selling of carbon ‘credits’ will simultaneously help prevent global warming and promote the planting of trees on degraded land
‘’‘'edit for copyright but please hit the link and read the rest

In fairness here is a precis on the topic from wikipedia with the Criticisms of carbon trading noted….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Criticism
There are critics of the schemes, mainly environmental justice NGOs and movements who see carbon trading as a proliferation of the free market into public spaces and environmental policy-making.[16] They point to failures in accounting, dubious science and destructive impacts of projects upon local peoples and environments as reasons why trading pollution rights should be avoided.[17] Instead they advocate making reductions at the source of pollution and energy policies that are justice-based and community-driven.[18] Most of the criticisms have been focused on the carbon market created through investment in Kyoto Mechanisms. Criticism of ‘cap and trade’ emissions trading has generally been more limited to lack of credibility in the first phase of the EU ETS.

Critics argue that emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems overall, as groups that do not pollute sell their conservation to the highest bidder. Overall reductions would need to come from a sufficient and challenging reduction of allowances available in the system. Likely this would occur over time through central regulation, though some environmental groups acted more immediately by buying credits and refusing to use or sell them. The National Allocation Plans by member governments of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme came under fire for this recently when some governments issued more carbon allowances than emissions during Phase I of the scheme. They have also been criticised for the widespread practice of grandfathering, where polluters are given carbon credits by governments, instead of being made to pay for them.[19] Nevertheless, the transfer of wealth from polluters to non-polluters provides incentives for polluting firms to change, especially if the market price for pollution credits is very high. Tight controls are necessary in order to establish a reverse commodity market like Green Tags as well. Regulatory agencies run the risk of issuing too many emission credits, diluting the effectiveness of regulation, and practically removing the cap. In this case instead of any net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, beneficiaries of emissions trading simply do more of the polluting activity.

...also edited but please read the whole article it is quite informative and not funereal in the least…..

#75601 by Ernest Canning on 6/05 at 5:00 pm
(293 comments total)

Miriam, dispair can derail a progressive movement for meaninigful change faster than oppressive legislation.

........
Not one ray of sunshine in the posts of this person. What to think…what to think.

You hit the nail on the head about despair leading to ennui, I would hate to think that this is what Ms. Russell intends. Always questioning the motives of all connected with the issues of global warming makes me question her motives…sorry to say.

Miriam, dispair can derail a progressive movement for meaninigful change faster than oppressive legislation.

Mariam,
I feel sorry for your sense of hopelessness. Some of us will continue the fight in your name, do not worry.

I do wonder at your appearance on a political website, especially given that you feel only pessimism and refuse to consider that small steps may add up to long miles eventually.

Good day to you.

Mariam,
I feel sorry for your sense of hopelessness. Some ofus will continue the fight in your name, do not worry.

I do wonder at your appearance on a political website, especially given that you feel only pessimism and refuse to consider that small steps may add up to long miles eventually.

Good day to you.

#74859 by MARIAM RUSSELL on 6/02 at 1:59 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

¨Yet climate change, as I noted earlier, is a symptom of industrialization. It cannot, and will not, be tamed until we acknowledge as much.¨

.........................................

You are obviously a very intelligent and thoughtful person, and seem to be concerned about our problems yet offer no solutions, however temporary, trivial or ultimately small they might be.

Bewailing the nature of our society, with its selfishness, profit at any cost mentality, insensitivity to the negative results of our efforts, whether societal or climatic may be an accurate appraisal but it does absolutely nothing to change things.

All being equal I will applaud the statements of those like Gore, continue to scrutinize that they mean what they say and do what they mean to, but will refrain from simply discarding their statements because acting upon them will profit someone or something. That is just counterproductive.

Mariam,
You seem almost eager to deflect the subject of this thread, or am I missing something here?

“What we have in this country is socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.”
Gore Vidal

ArcherDaniels is one of any number of corporations receiving huge subsidies and other perks from this government. The system stinks , it is true, but do we then reject any solution from any company that gets government welfare? Lets just buy property in Arizona, build a beach house and await events that will bring the ocean to us….

“For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man’s nature, than to excuse; and condemnation, than absolution more resembles justice.”
Hobbes
Leviathon

I wish to discuss, as does Gore, the solutions to a very real problem, global warming and its consquences. You wish to dwell upon who is getting rich, I dont care, at least to the extent that it deflects from arriving at solutions to the primary problem. I am a socialist, I might add, so I am conscious of the inequities in a capitalist society and wish, fervently to bring equity to the lives of all peoples of the world.

But, for the purposes of this thread, I forego discussion of capitalism and its basic unfairness in order to concentrate upon solutions to the problem at hand. I would be very happy to discuss the corporate slavery under which we all reside, but in its own time and place.

Does the Prius cause pollution or strip mining, well damn it to hell, but it uses way less oil to run, whoopee, a small step in the right direction.

“All of us are in the gutter, but some are staring up at stars.”
Oscar Wilde

We can mire ourselves in the sidestepping you seem to actively seek, but I prefer to see an intelligent approach to manufacture, a capping of harmful emissions, an end to our slavery to the oil and gas companies, and we can work on that other stuff too….so much to do, so little time.

“Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’ We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are….:
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Baby steps, perhaps, hindered by the old profit motive perhaps as well.

Ms. Russell posts rather well crafted pieces that give us reason to doubt what efforts are being made but gives us no optimism at all. I wish she had posted a link to the Frank piece, Ive read him on occasion and enjoy his efforts generally.

The Prius is wildy successsful, here on the left coast, as one might suspect. I offer that this is a good thing. It is fine to ponder the reasons for things but one must always include a benefit analysis as well. I do not begrudge Archer Daniels Midland their profit if we benefit from their endeavors.

Bringing the effects of and the dangers of global warming to the consciousness of the peoples of these United States, and the world for that matter, is a difficult road indeed. The oil companies have many billions in profit to expend upon diversionary tactics in order to wring every last bit of profit from the dwindling oil reserves, and people seem so ready to believe any absurdity that preaches dont rock the boat. Some are talking about coal fired energy, save us, oh please save us!

I believe man made global warming to be real, I believe that small steps will be necesary to raise the awareness thereof on enough folks to effect a change of direction in our energy production and in our overall lifestyles. I further believe that a tipping point will be reached in which the solutions get better and the technology emerges to refute those corporations that seek to usurp the conversation and lead us astray. I further believe that , in order to reach this tipping point, we will have to judge each proposal on its merits and stop looking for the boogey man in every corner.

I would not imply base motives to the position of Ms. Russell as I have not read enough from her to form an opinion. I do not understand this aversion to making money. The funds you cite are already in existence and are open to investment by you, by me and by Gore as well. I would much rather have a portfolio that contains a fund like this than one composed of weapons manufacturers, wouldnt you?

You seem stuck upon implying a profit motive to Gore’s words yet do not discuss in any detail the merits of those words, this is rather strange to me. The great majority of our scientific community seems to agree that global warming is very real and very serious, do they all search for wealth with this stance?

Ardee:  The reason why people like Miriam Russell search for a reason, any reason, to reject what Gore has to say about global warming is because, as Gore noted in the title of his documentary, global warming is truly an “inconvenient” truth.  It entails a very basic human defense mechanism known as “denial.”  If you can’t challenge him with the facts, well, after-all he was a politician.  For someone in denial that should be enough.

#73454 by MARIAM RUSSELL on 5/28 at 11:20 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Mariam, if I may, and can cut through the background noise of the logic challenged fumbler…..

Lets consider that the issue of global warming is a complex one, lets also consider that, despite the ramblings of neocons who front for the oil industry and refuse to consider anything that cuts into the 38 billion ExxonMobil made last year, many, many peer revued papers have supported the concept of man made global warming for years now. So it is not a matter of Gore “selling” us anything. If he wanted to be even richer isnt it likely he would have forgone poltics entirely and focussed upon business from the first?

There certainly could be very natural trends at work in our temperature rise, complex issues are seldom two sided, but isnt it true that the billions of tons of CO2 released into the athmosphere may be doing us harm as well? Isnt it also true that new technologies always spark the economy, adding many new jobs and infusions of money into the economy?

Do we have to wait for a coastline in Arizona before we take steps to decrease pollution? Are we so in the thrall of big oil that we cannot consider alternatives to an energy source that is finite and keeps us in a horrific alliance with some strange folks in the Middle East?

Why blame Gore without any evidence? Why comment on his portfolio when you havent a clue as to what it contains? Why not credit the man for buying energy from so-called Green sources at a much increased cost to himself? Why not applaud his additions of solar power to his homes rather than speculate on his supposed hidden agendas? It simply makes very little sense unless, like RAE, you have some reason to avoid, ignore and tar with broad brush…....If you do I hope you avoid tripping over your own illogic as does she…..

Oh dear, Mariam Russell, you’re in the glue now. Just wait ‘til ardee tags you for your skepticism, doubts and assertion that Al Gore is a politician!

But I think you’re using just plain common sense to figure that since Mr. Gore comes from a very different “place” than most of us, his view of things is likely to be different as well. How different and in what direction(s)... WHO KNOWS?

To question is a mark of intelligence. To ask for documentation and evidence of ANY claim is a valid request. To analyze and critique a full and satisfactory disclosure before coming to a conclusion is pure wisdom. This takes time and effort and since each of us has only so much of either, we must focus only on those “oxen” of ours that are being “gored,” and leave the rest to others.

I HOPE Mr. Gore is dead wrong and not for any ill will or mean-spirited reasons. His work so far is extraordinarily well done and deserves critical attention from us all. It does not logically follow, though, that he is correct. That is yet to be proven.

Thanks to Max The Mediator…

It took me a while to respond because I was laughing so hard.

According to ardee, I’m a hopscotching, fuzzy-headed, mysterious puzzlement who doesn’t give a crap. I always appear that way to those who consider themselves important.

ardee lies like shards of safety glass on the editing room floor, a perplexed wreck freshly returned from doing battle in the peripatetic wars of words and ideas. My work here is done!

OF COURSE I DON’T TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY! Participating on Truthdig is recreation, a pasttime. Those who invest more into it than that, who assume that their thoughts, their insights, their comments are somehow unique or important, including my own, are even more delusional than the present crop of odious, hypocritical, religious zealots. Truthdig is a pickup word game in cyberspace where the participants get to mentally masturbate sometimes to the delight and entertainment of the passing voyeurs but most often to complete indifference.

ardee is quite correct to assume I’m here to poke my oar in the water, to make ripples in the mental fabric of the moment. I like to lift up rocks to see what lives underneath - sometimes I delight in whatever crawls out!

But NEVER do I consider my existence or contribution on this planet as anything but a fleeting, inconsequential fart in the hurricane of the universe. We each are infinitesimal specks of space dust no more or less important than an individual atom on a single ant in an enormous hill.

It seems I sometimes unintentionally offend those who take themselves more seriously than that. If my position and views offend, however, the problem remains with the offendee. It sure as hell isn’t going to become mine!

To compound my glib, irritating arrogance I wish it to be known that I do NOT consider that I am here on this planet to do chores… to be grist for some economic mill not of my creation… to climb some stupid corporate ladder… to gain some idiotic gold watch… or to live up to ANYONE’s expectations other than my own.

I do, however, assume the view that I am here to enjoy myself enormously while “taking only photographs and leaving nothing but footprints.” And I do. Thanks for your time.

Mr. Shields,

Thank you for articulating, and so very well, that which I had a difficult time expressing. Were I only as erudite and well spoken. Its sometimes very frustrating, and leads to frictions as well.

“We must love them both, those whose opinions we share, those whose opinions we do not share. They have both labored in the search for Truth and have both helped us in finding it.”
Thomas Aquinas

#73293 by RAE on 5/27 at 4:43 pm

Hope you and ardee don’t mind my interjection. I think you’re both desparately trying to be understood; and my guess is that much of what you’re each saying is clear. The issue is how to view the words and acts of Al Gore?

As a “former” politician Gore has a legacy which we can for the moment keep separate. Today, he indicates he has no plans to run for office. He is not connected to a governmental policy or administration and the constituency needed to support it. So, in that sense he is not a politician.

But in a broader sense he is. He has an agenda. He is thoroughly schooled in that agenda - the environmental damage caused in large part by human consumption of natural resources. He has a broad constituency which is not partisan, and at times extends beyond US borders. So, he must present himself as a spokesperson, in a much less narrow sense, but always conscious of a vested interest he hopes others will share to achieve mutual goals.

But does this mean that Gore has no political aspirations? He has yet to answer definitively, but his book, The Assault Against Reason, seems to offer a distinctive framework for a possible run . But Bill Bradley has come out his version of an American vision - and I don’t think anyone expects him to run.

Personally, I see Gore as a thoughtful, but complex, person who is using his “political capital” (the popular winner of 2000 election) to achieve what he spent the better part of a quarter century to do - get the threat to the planet on the national priority agenda.

The legacy of the Clinton admin. is mixed, and really quite concerning. We are now aware that during that time over one million Iraqi civilians (many children) were killed as a result of the US sanctions and regular terrorist air raids. So, the skepticism is wise. As far as being lied to, well, that’s something, we each to to come to terms with - Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Ferry…I’m a little more concerned with planetary annihilation.

RAE, I begin to suspect that you are correct, you cannot do better, probably because your premise seems as full of holes as can be. Your rant is illogical, at least to me,it just makes absolutely no sense. Sorry but that is the succinct truth. You began by saying you dont believe Gore because he is a politician, then descend rather rapidly to this :

“The one “stand” I do take I stated earlier - I DEMAND THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH from my elected representatives. If you want to argue that position, feel free. “

You then hopscotch to this gem:

“Re the TRUTH - it is not my responsibility to dedicate my life to digging out the truth. It is the responsibility of those offering it to support their claims. Of course I don’t have, or more accurately don’t want to dedicate whatever time I have left to poking around to find the “truth.” Why? Because even if I did no one would care or pay any attention. I’m not particularly bright but I’m not stupid enough to waste my time on causes that are lost from the git-go!

Just to be crystal clear. Because I’m not prepared to “do the leg work to discover the truth” does not mean I have no right to expect - to demand - it from my PAID REPRESENTATIVES. If you’re still confused, I’m sorry. I can’t do better. “

So you demand, sorry DEMAND, the truth, you dont believe what they say and wont or cant research it yourself, because noone would care….does that include yourself?......so you never know truth from falsehood or even try to unearth it, sad , very, very sad.

Perhaps this is a capricious and amusing endeavor for you, posting here, I frankly do not know. But I do know that your logic appears more than fuzzy, your political acumen is a mystery and there is no further necesity nor purpose in continuing this sort of conversation. It was my understanding that this was a place in which to post opinion and debate between the varying and individual insights. That you are a self confessed dont give a crap type makes your posting here rather a puzzlement. See you around…...Hope you wont take this the wrong way but I am a very honest type.

Well, ardee, I’m not sure how I can successfully clarify my position to your satisfaction.

When people meet almost the first thing asked and answered is “... and what do you DO?” Our society seems to define people by their occupations. Any one individual can wear MANY labels simultaneously.

When you “retired” from being a computer executive (whatever the heck that is) did you erase all the expertise, skills and attitudes learned and practised while performing that profession? I think not. They are part and parcel of who you are and what attitudes and views you hold today even though you no longer are active in that profession. If you don’t think so, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this because I do.

Gore is obviously a multi-experienced, multi-talented, multi-tasking luminary. He’s one of the few who can wear many difficult and complicated “hats” simultaneously. His “global warming” exercise - “An Inconvenient Truth” - is a masterpiece of highly POLITICAL media. It may simultaneously be many other things as well - a great scientific piece, for example, except there are those who are highly critical of it for many reasons.

In any case, while it is POSSIBLE Al Gore is all that he appears to be, all that he appears to present to the public, that’s not the way I would bet. Why? Because I don’t know anyone, me included, who presents entirely authentically to the world. We all manufacture our images to some extent. Again, if you don’t buy that, you’re free to agree to disagree but that’s my position on the subject.

What’s “lurking in my background” is that I am a CONFIRMED SKEPTIC about almost everything in our society. Why? Because my society has lied to me almost from birth. There is no Santa Claus. There is no Tooth Fairy. There is no God. Literature I was taught in school was edited and expurgated to suit the sensibilities and prejudices of those in charge. And so on ad nauseum.

All there is is a pack of contrived expectations that I will become a good consumer and cause as little fuss as possible should I become aware of how society uses and abuses all of us as “grist for the mill.”

Re the TRUTH - it is not my responsibility to dedicate my life to digging out the truth. It is the responsibility of those offering it to support their claims. Of course I don’t have, or more accurately don’t want to dedicate whatever time I have left to poking around to find the “truth.” Why? Because even if I did no one would care or pay any attention. I’m not particularly bright but I’m not stupid enough to waste my time on causes that are lost from the git-go!

Just to be crystal clear. Because I’m not prepared to “do the leg work to discover the truth” does not mean I have no right to expect - to demand - it from my PAID REPRESENTATIVES. If you’re still confused, I’m sorry. I can’t do better.

#73237 by RAE on 5/27 at 11:34 am
(91 comments total)

To ardee…

Surprised you don’t consider Gore a politician. He is “experienced in the art or science of government” - the very definition of a politician according to Webster. Just because he isn’t actively engaged at the moment in office, or running for office, he doesn’t stop being a politician any more than an non-practising MD ceases to be a doctor. And if you think being the poster boy for the environmental issues of the day isn’t political activity, then you and I aren’t even using the same language!

I do not “align” myself with anyone at the moment. For me to choose political sides or to take a stand requires a much greater investment into research into politics than I’m prepared to make at the moment. The one “stand” I do take I stated earlier - I DEMAND THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH from my elected representatives. If you want to argue that position, feel free.

————-
I confess to being confused by your stances and your definitions. I was once a computer executive, but am no longer in that position. Does this mean I am forever defined by my previous occupation? I think not. Gore was once a Senator and a Vice President, and, if we had legal and fair elections, would probably have added President to his resume also. He is now a budding media mogul and spokesperson for environmental issues as well as an author. But you seem stuck in an opinion of Gore based upon a previous occupation, and that opinion seems automatically negative because of his prior occupation.

I wonder if you apply the same standards to all who serve or once served in office. Do you also think jaundiced of Dennis Kucinichs’ stances, how about those of Ron Paul, or James Earl Carter’s? Are they all not to be trusted because they serve or once served as politicians. Why not think Carter a carpenter as he builds homes for the poor, or a nobelist as he is one?

I cannot help but ponder the dichotomies of your position and wonder if you really mean other than what you state publically. Im sorry but I seem to see something lurking in the background and it colors my understanding, or lack thereof, of your stated or almost stated positions.

You claim not to trust Gore, whatever the real reason, you also claim to insist upon the truth but state you just havent the time to discover those truths….this does not compute, so how do you demand truth, disbelieve all politicians (or is it just certain ones?), and fail to do the leg work to discover those truths you claim to insist upon?

I am really trying to understand your position here as you seem a poster worth hearing, so please do not take my questions as anything remotely negative, I am just trying to see your position, honest.

Ernest Canning…

you posted, in part, “...your cynical impression that all politicians lie is a form of apathy that prevents meaningful change.”

Re the first half of your statement, I apologize. I was trying to convey that all politicians MIGHT LIE and therefore must be questioned, investigated and overseen. To be clear, I do not think ALL politicians make bold-faced lies. I do think, however, that ALL of them know how and when to “fudge the truth” because, it’s my opinion, that they would never have been elected if they didn’t. The people don’t seem to want to deal with “the ugly truth” - they want to be told what they want to hear and apparently will elect the one who does the best job doing it. So maybe it’s the expectations of the electorate that is the problem and not the politicians themselves?

Re the second half of your statement, again I apologize. You could very well be correct although I haven’t thought about it enough to full out agree with your conclusion. Apathy opens the door to… whatever. I don’t think it prevents or hinders change but I’m reasonably sure it doesn’t help ensure a POSITIVE change is made.

I sure hope you’re correct in your assessment that there is an undercurrent of change building. The world can hardly wait.

————————————

To ardee…

Surprised you don’t consider Gore a politician. He is “experienced in the art or science of government” - the very definition of a politician according to Webster. Just because he isn’t actively engaged at the moment in office, or running for office, he doesn’t stop being a politician any more than an non-practising MD ceases to be a doctor. And if you think being the poster boy for the environmental issues of the day isn’t political activity, then you and I aren’t even using the same language!

I do not “align” myself with anyone at the moment. For me to choose political sides or to take a stand requires a much greater investment into research into politics than I’m prepared to make at the moment. The one “stand” I do take I stated earlier - I DEMAND THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH from my elected representatives. If you want to argue that position, feel free.

RAE, your cynical impression that all politicians lie is a form of apathy that prevents meaningful change.  Deceit is the staple of the so-called “leading” politicians—the ones who have sold their souls to the corporatocracy in order to collect the millions needed to feed the conglomerated media noise machine and produce deceptive 30 second spot ads.  But there is an undercurrent of change, a swelling in the numbers of individuals like Dennis Kucinich who refuse to sell-out to the corporatocracy and who insist on speaking truth to power.  It is critical that individuals like yourself begin to appreciate this fundamental distinction.  If not, we are doomed to remain within our present malaise.

#73117 by RAE on 5/26 at 8:22 pm
(88 comments total)

“But I do not suspect his motives, why on earth should I?”

Because, ardee, Gore is first and foremost a POLITICIAN. Tell me, which politicians do you accept at face value - whose motives you do not question
———————

I must interject that Gore was a politican and is one no longer. He is now an entrepreneur, a private citizen who has access to the public forum because he was a Vice President and once won an election to the Presidency. By your standards noone serving in public office, or one who ever served in that capacity is trustworthy.

Gore has cachet precisely because he is so familiar with the system about which he comments. He has my ear because he has stated, time and again, that he will not run for office again thus he has no hidden agenda and can speak to what he strongly believes.

I do agree that we should never, ever take anyone at face value but all the research I do aligns me with most of Albert Gore’s positions on issues. I would be curious to see with whom you align? And why…...

“But I do not suspect his motives, why on earth should I?”

Because, ardee, Gore is first and foremost a POLITICIAN. Tell me, which politicians do you accept at face value - whose motives you do not question?

To become an elected and successful politician these days one must be very skilled at finessing the truth. If you read my piece you already know that I consider such activity in the same category as lying.

We, the people, for the most part, have access to only that information the politicians want us to have. Which means, for the most part, we, the people, haven’t a clue what is really going on.

Even the greatest have feet of clay. If you don’t suspect and question you get what you deserve. Lied to.

Curious…Gore seems to have grown some backbone…if he ran, would it remain?

#73036 by ardee on 5/26 at 2:26 pm

I agree with your concerns and demands.

What I glean from listening to Gore is his systems view of what’s wrong. Charlie Rose posed a question to Gore about the Dems (Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, and others) who voted for the war knowing what he (Gore) knew who came out before the invasion, against it. CR asked Gore, so was this a simple case of careerism (career over country)? Gore stated, a little, but not as much as it might appear. He than went on to follow the theme of his book (Assault On Reason) and, regarding the recent funding, mentioned that the congressional instruments to deal with such matters are blunt and ill-equipt for dealing with this kind of situation (the complexities etc.).  And,with regard to the original vote to invade,  (I’m paraphrasing) this is a systemic and structural problem. The system, for some time, has begun to work against some of the best intentions of congressional reps.

I agree with the systemic problem. Regardless who the administration happens to be, the policies, the structural and systemic obstructions limit the responses to situations. This does not remove accountability in theory, but in practice it has diminished to the point of barely existing.

My conclusion (and I think Gore shares it) is that the solution is grass-roots based, and systemically defined. It is extremely complex (as is the environment) and will require first and foremost an acknowledgement of the problem - most are still in denial as they were regarding global warming 20 years ago.)

Personally, it’s a long shot that the kind of transformation needed can occur with the existing system.

But back to the candidates.

I’m not looking at the top tier of candidates, but at the 2nd tier. I’m more interested in a Progressive friendly (not necessarily hard and fast progressive), with a strong sense of self, willingness and ability to learn (but with some solid experience in statesmanship, a broad and embracing worldview, an understanding of the connectedness of the planet, and a keen ability to see through a problem to its root causes, with an uncanny ability to pick the right people with divergent ideas, but solid moral values. Dodd? Richardson? Gore?

#72966 by RAE on 5/26 at 10:10 am
(85 comments total)

Gore SOUNDS so sensible, so well-informed and well-intentioned. He SOUNDS like someone you can trust - have confidence that he has Joe Citizen’s best interests at heart. He SOUNDS like someone I would vote for.

But I’ve been on this planet far too long to not harbor deep, deep scepticism about his true nature and intentions. And I feel guilty about how I feel!

———————————-

If you cannot put your fears into words then perhaps they are unreal ones….I fail to see why length of life should lead you to scepticism of Gore, Ive lived a rather longish time, perhaps longer than even you, and have real criticisms of some of Gore’s actions and beliefs, all of which I can articulate. But I do not suspect his motives, why on earth should I?

Gore SOUNDS so sensible, so well-informed and well-intentioned. He SOUNDS like someone you can trust - have confidence that he has Joe Citizen’s best interests at heart. He SOUNDS like someone I would vote for.

But I’ve been on this planet far too long to not harbor deep, deep scepticism about his true nature and intentions. And I feel guilty about how I feel!

I sure hope I’m dead wrong about him, but he’s got a lot of work to do and a long way to go before any antidote to my jaded pessimism will work it’s magic.

I don’t expect perfection in my leaders. I DO expect… DEMAND… they tell me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how “bad” it might be. I DEMAND to be respected as an intelligent, mature, and full participant in this democracy. I DEMAND to be treated as a part owner and shareholder of this country whose views and opinions matter. I DEMAND to be consulted.

Anyone who doesn’t meet these expections belongs in the trash heap along with all the other con artists, liars, cheats and thieves.

This is an excellent critique of the conglomerated corporate media and its devaluation of our democracy.  The only thing left out of the Gore analysis was the fact that the corporate media has a vested interest in failing to provide meaningful coverage, especially with respect to campaigns and where candidates stand on issues of substance.  The 30 second spot ads he speaks of are a major source of corporate media.  This forces candidates to spend more and more time looking for sources of funds for the next election; then the next election after that.  As a result, the election cycle has become near continuous.

While those candidates who sell out to the corporatocracy have the most direct access of the funds necessary to purchase ads, and just happen to be the candidates most often mentioned by the corporate media, progressive candidates also find it necessary to constantly solicit funds from the middle and working classes to feed the media noise machine.  This is systemic corruption, since it means that the very operation of the democratic process translates into a flow of money from ordinary working people to the conglomerated media—to corporations who work tirelessly “against” the “public” interest.

There will never be meaningful campaign finance reform unless and until we have fundamental media reform, including a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and mandatory coverage of debates and all candidates as part of the price the conglomerated corporate media must pay for their monopoly licenses to operate over the public airwaves.

Some more serious takes:

How Global Warming And Al Gore May Rescue the Nuclear Power Industry ... Al Gore, who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his book ...
http://www.counterpunch.org/nukes.html

Jeffrey St. Clair: Al Gore, the Origins of a Hypocrite In 1984, Al Gore took Baker’s Senate seat and over the next eight years voted for the nuclear lobby 55 percent of the time. As vice president and author of ...
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03032007.html