July 18, 2008
Al Gore’s modest proposal
And speaking of satire…
When I read Al Gore’s latest speech on global warming, my reaction was much like my initial response to that New Yorker cover (see previous post): What am I supposed to make of this?
The call to produce “100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years” is off the charts. To blandly claim that this is both “achievable” and “affordable” is a typical Gore touch–as is the hyperbole about the end of life as we know it if we fail to do as he advises. Gore says, “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.” Well, among other things, that depends what you mean by “dramatic”; so far as am I aware, nobody else is saying, “eliminate carbon from the US electricity supply by 2018 or we are doomed.”
Gore is right, however, that meeting his target would be “transformative”. That is why the inevitable invocation of Kennedy’s moon-shot commitment is ill-conceived. Putting a man on the moon within nine years of getting the first American into space was self-evidently a staggering accomplishment. But unlike what Gore is calling for, it did not represent “a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”
I agree with Gore about some things. I agree with his preference for a carbon tax over other carbon control regimes. And history has been on the side of technology optimists. At today’s energy prices, progress on new technologies for conservation and renewables will probably happen much faster than we think. (See this for instance.) But eliminating carbon from electricity within 10 years? Does he even mean it? “I see my role as enlarging the political space in which Senator Obama or Senator McCain can confront this issue as president next year,” he says. Translation: I advocate the impossible so that the possible becomes more probable. Fair enough, one might say. But propaganda in a good cause is still propaganda, isn’t it?
AlGore’s statements about eliminating all carbon from electricity production in this country within 10 years is patently silly. Any informed individual knows this cannot be done. One suspects AlGore’s motives may not be as pure as “advocating the impossible so that the possible may become more probable.”
AlGore has won an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize based on a film that is full of untruth. The uniformed, the zealots, and the politically correct bought into it, despite its inconvenient untruths.
AlGore was groomed by his father as the scion of a would-be political dynasty. That hope ended in 2000, in an election where AlGore couldn’t even carry his own state of Tennessee. Where next to seek fame and adulation? Aha! The environmental movement had been seized by zealots and true believers. Idealistic and not-well-informed young people everywhere also seized on it. It was a proper politically correct venue for right-thinking people everywhere. AlGore seized the moment.
Now this AlGore pronouncement. Not a real challenge, but silly, by any rational view. But AlGore knows that the zealots and politically correct in the environmental movement will support him out of poliical commitment, and that many who are ill-informed, or not informed at all about the energy needs of the US and the realties of power production from non-carbon sources may actually buy his “argument.” But, what he has done is keep himself somewhat in the news. The Peace Prize and the Academy Award are old news now, and had begun to fade in relevancy. Could this be AlGore’s way of keeping himself in the public eye? It seems to be very difficult for sometime public figures to let go of the public notice and adulation they once had as their stars begin to fade.
Poor old Jimmy Carter is a prime example of this. Instead of retiring to the prestige of an ex-President and elder statesman, he set out working hard and campagining for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he finally received. But during that time when he was working so hard for it, and afterward, he has been nothing but a nuisance everywhere. Carter has injected himself into the internal affairs of other countries and the foreign policy of the US, and cozied up to various thugs and dictators running countries around the world. A lot of people today simply wish Jimmy Carter would just go away.
Could AlGore be setting forth on a similar path?
I would be more inclined to accept AlGore’s high opinion of himself if he would:
First, move out of his house with the huge carbon footprint, and move into a small log cabin in the woods, using only biomass (trees) for fuel, carrying water in a bucket from the creek, and using tallow from animals he killed in the woods for candles for lighting.
Second, do something about the zinc mine that is, as far as I know, still operating on his property in Tennessee.
Posted by: Terry L. Walker | July 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this commentTo TerryLWalker: Al Gore (correctly spelled with a space between his first and last names) may have his shortcomings. But please remember that he would have been our president for at least four of the past eight years if thousands of African-Anerican voters who were eligible to vote in Florida had not been illegally struck from the voting rolls, and if all of the votes of people who actually did vote had been fairly and fully counted, instead of being disregarded by biased officials who might have been able to teach Robert Mugabe a thing or two about how to steal elections, backed up by a politically stacked Supreme Court.
Posted by: algasema | July 18th, 2008 at 5:28 pm | Report this commentSorry: “African-American voters”.
Posted by: algasema | July 18th, 2008 at 5:30 pm | Report this commentalgasema–Yes, Virginia, I do know how to space Albert Arnold Gore Jr.’s name. AlGore is a takeoff on “Igor.” Igor is commonly thought of as the assistant to various mad scientists in old movies. The AlGore moniker was popular during Gore’s stint as second banana to Bill Clinton. I guess the “New Yorker” is not alone in having to explain satire.
Thousands of African-Americans were not illegally struck from the voting roles in Florida. Had that happened, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division would have been all over it. They positively salivate, waiting for such cases.
An inconvenient truth that many who tenaciously cling to the notion that the 2000 election was “stolen” in Florida is that a number of journalists from big liberal media went to Florida and examined results, and concluded that even if all the contested votes had been counted, George Bush would still have won. If the liberal media came to this conclusion, that really puts paid to the “stolen” election mantra. And if people are concerned about “hanging chads” and other foul-ups committed by individual voters, this is my thought–voting is not that difficult. Anyone interested in voting simply need inform himself or herself of the candidates and issues, and then, regarding the physical act of voting, ascertain fully what to do. In most places now, it is as simple as pushing some buttons. And people are on hand to explain how to physically vote. If someone can’t accomplish the simple task of voting, then he or she needs to get his or her backside in gear. If the individual can operate high-tech cellphones, he or she can surely figure out how to press a simple button or two (or even how to fully press through a chad on a paper ballot) on a voting machine.
Now, if you want to study something about a stolen election, read up on the 1960 election. It is conceded by most all political scientists, journalists of the time and now, and serious students of American politics that that one was stolen by John Kennedy and the Democrat political bosses from Richard Nixon. Nixon, whatever his faults, did not spend the rest of his days whining about it. Nixon would have had a reason to whine. AlGore does not. He was beaten, fair and square, in Florida and in other states of the United States.
Posted by: Terry L. Walker | July 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pm | Report this commentTerry, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has been virtually comatose under Bush. Moreover, by the time the wholesale and well organized purge of African-American voters in Florida by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush in 2000 came to light, it was, in all probability, too late to do anything about it in time for the election.
If I am wrong about this, then this is just one more example of how the Democrats were out - guessed and out-foxed by the Republicans in 2000 - everything except outvoted.
Looking ahead, we will probably see minority vote suppression in Florida and elsewhere this year on a scale that will make 2000 look like a grade school civics class in democracy by comparison.
Republican dominated Florida has now enacted legislation imposing big fines for trivial voter registration organization violations, such as filing reports one day late. Many of these organizations, according to the New York Times, have simply given up. The Times also says that Florida is the hardest state in the US for a voter to be able to register in.
On the federal level, the Justice department under Gonzales made investigating and bringing groundless charges against minority voter registration groups its top priority, in order to protect the country against the dangerous crimes of VWL and VWB (Voting While Latino and Voting While Black).
Some 20 states have passed restrictive voter ID laws making it harder for minorities, the poor and the elderly to vote. Shamefully, the Supreme Court has upheld one of these laws, the one in Indiana.
The above having been said, I will admit that you have a point about the 1960 election, the first in which I was old enough to vote (for Kennedy). So I can attest that he got at least one vote from a living, legally registered voter.
While there is no excuse for the way that Kennedy reportedly won, at least the country didn’t suffer the way it has under Bush. Anyway, though this doesn’t justify any alleged 1960 vote stealing, Nixon finally got his chance in the White House later on. And look what happened.
Posted by: algasema | July 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm | Report this commentalgasema writes: “Anyway, though this doesn’t justify any alleged 1960 vote stealing, Nixon finally got his chance in the White House later on. And look what happened.”
What happened? Is it not fair to say that Nixon unwound the mess Kennedy had begun (Vietnam)?
I am surprised by this talk (and agreement) about vote stealing in 1960, though I dimly remember having heard of the story before. And what of this talk about voter disenfranchisement? What a miracle that America has gone from strength to strength despite all that goes on in its politics. A tribute to something, no doubt, but to what?
Posted by: RCS | July 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm | Report this commentInteresting comment, RSC, but sadly out of tune with either past or present reality. To summarize briefly, Nixon was elected to office on the basis of a “secret” plan to end the Vietnam war. Instead, he expanded it by bombing Laos and Cambodia, ultimately helping to destabilize that country and to bring the unspeakable Khmer Rouge to power (until it was finally thrown out in an invasion by the same Vietnamese communists that the US lost 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam trying to “protect” the world from).
Nixon did not end the Vietnam war. It was ended, more than anything else, because the New York Times published the Pentagon papers, revealing how much the continuation of the war was based on lies.
Nixon tried to suppress the publication of these papers, but lost in the US Supreme Court, sealing his fate and the fate of the war itself. However, since Nixon was ultimately forced to resign over the Watergate scandal, it was left to President Ford finally to launch the escape helicopters from the roof of the US embassy in Saigon.
I have to break now, but I will look for a good basic history text over the weekend to recommend to you. There is, in fact, an excellent book out called “Iraq and Vietnam” that should be required reading for everybody. Details follow.
However, I do not blame anyone for making wild and fantastic statements about Vietnam, such as “Nixon unwound the mess that Kennedy has begun”. After all that was a long time ago. But the suppression of minority votes in the US now is happening right before our eyes. It is worth a good deal of attention by anyone who really cares about understanding American politics.
The weekend is coming up and work has to be finished first. So, more on this next time.
A good weekend to all.
Posted by: algasema | July 18th, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Report this commentSince Al Gore’s political career ended, he’s really been on a roll. Practicality has taken a back seat. Still unconvinced that the greatest threat to humanity is climate change. I need to watch his film again.
www.hopeisnotaforeignpolicy.org
Posted by: Hope is Not A Foreign Policy | July 19th, 2008 at 12:48 am | Report this commentRCS–Just quickly on the 1960 election. The election was stolen in Illinois. Not that there wasn’t fraud in other places, but the Cook County (Chicago) Democrat machine held results until it was determined how many would be needed to win Illinois. Then that margin was delivered from Cook County. The Illinois win won John Kennedy the election.
Interestingly, John Kennedy more or less became a leading candidate after winning the West Virginia Democrat Primary. This win came as a result of a lot of help from organized crime–its influence and its money. John’s father, Joseph P. Kennedy, had ties to the underworld. Sam Giancana was the Chicago mob boss at the time. Among other things, Giancana and John Kennedy shared a, shall we say, woman companion.
Posted by: Terry L. Walker | July 19th, 2008 at 1:10 am | Report this commentSir,
Posted by: Carlos A Rodriguez | July 19th, 2008 at 6:41 am | Report this commentTo say things will not be accomplished in a certain time frame because the problems are perceived to be insurmountable is losing a race before starting it, isn’t it?
Thank you.
So it was Cook County then and now! Amazing. Maybe they should change the name to Crook County.
With such a democratic deficit, who says America proves that democracy works (and don’t forget the low voter turnouts)?
Posted by: RCS | July 19th, 2008 at 7:12 am | Report this commentIn 2018 ten years from now you will be able to buy the computing power of the brain in a laptop for $1000.00 dollars, Millions of Young people and so of us oldsters will be tied in to the Internet by the “ICHIP” So maybe Al Gore has a point that. We are also moving so fast with Nanotechnology. Last but not least 2018 is the 200th birthday of ????.
So it is more important than every that we get every last terrorist. The Technology that is just down the road must never get into the hands of Terrorists or Governments that support Terrorists.
The real question voters should be asking is who is best able to lead us into this “BRAVE NEW WORLD”
Obama or McCain ?
My money is on McCain.
VJ Machiavelli
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | July 19th, 2008 at 9:33 am | Report this commenthttp://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
VJ Machiavelli, does this mean that the US government should have total control over everyone’s brain so that no one will have dangerous thoughts? A concept indeed worthy of the name Machiavelli. Moreover, this is an idea toward which the Bush/Cheney duo seems to be making considerable progress.
Maybe we won’t have to wait another ten years in order to turn into programmed robots. If fact, one could argue that half of the voters in the US are already close to being in that state.
Posted by: algasema | July 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Report this commentOut of respect for the Blog author, Mr. Crook, and his patience and willingness to put up with sometimes absurd discussions, I suggest we do not refer to my county of residence as Crook County.
There are many fine Crooks and crooks who would be insulted by the moniker.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 19th, 2008 at 10:35 pm | Report this comment