It's not uncommon to find a critique at this site of various writings in the local MSM, but to their credit both the P-I and the Times seem to do a decent job of keeping the true nutjobs off their opinion pages - besides of course the letters sections. There are exceptions, however.
Psychotherapist Trip Quillman offers thoughts on why Al Gore is destined for greatness in 2008. Or at least that's his idea. Many readers probably suspect Quillman may want to undergo some professional services in his own occupation, if they can get past the raw humor of a psychotherapist named "Trip."
Either way, Quillman's missive appears in the Snohomish County insert of the today's Times, nearly jolting me from my elliptical machine at the gym this morning with laughter.
Some of my mirth was from the latentm factual inaccuracies. Quillman proclaims Gore would have won authentic recounts in Florida after the 2000 election. Really? Is he sure?
Well, he probably thinks he is. But that canard from some on the left has been disproven before.
Quillman also asserts Gore would base his campaign heavily on global warming, in part because of the "non-alarmist way" in which he discusses the matter. "Non-alarmist"? I'll have to remember that. It seems very accurate.
I'm sure there's more to dissect in Trip's trip, but his facts are so flawed and his idealism so rampant I'm not sure it's worth further effort.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 02, 2007 07:27 PM | Email ThisBtw, I heard today on the TV news that some hotel took out all the Bibles in its rooms and replaced them with Al Gore's "an Inconvenient Truth."
Sorry,but anyone looking for life guidance ain't gonna find it in Gore's book.
Posted by: Michele on May 2, 2007 08:14 PMAnd for all you wingers (the -20% that still support Cheney), the public sides with Democrats on all those issues by a 60-80% clip depending on the issue.
Think you're enjoying the minority...just wait 2 years when you guys will have no power whatsover. Will serve you right for sending us down the crapper over the past 6 years.
Posted by: James on May 2, 2007 11:54 PMLike his claim that he could visually detect, with his naked eye, the difference in an ice core sample from before and after the Clean Air Act. Or that his professor could possibly have "intuited" global warming. Or that a graph that shows temperature rising before CO2 levels shows that, he says, CO2 increases cause warming.
Even a lay person can pick this stuff apart, even without doing actual research. That's how obviously bad it is.
Not all of it, of course. Some of it is decent. But far too much of it is just bad, and most of it is extremely alarmist, like his completely nonsensical simulations of flooding that could only happen if ice sheets completely melt, which no one thinks is going to happen.
The part where he notes that the 9/11 memorial is going to be underwater, that we have a "bigger threat than terrorism" -- without noting the fact that no climate scientist believes this will happen -- is a textbook case of extermist, alarmist, propaganda.
The one thing I can't figure out is why you say any of those things as if they are GOOD.
I'm sure he is completely off on climate change as well. I mean he only has the majority of Nobel Prize winners and the majority of climate scientists and the vast majority of peer reviewed articles on the subject agreeing with him. Since the MIT guy and the Hurricaine guy disagree, we should stop letting it bother us. I mean what's the worst that could happen?
Of course there was a panal of top ranking military officers who just released a report on the security risks of climate change that said: "Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay." But what do they know?
You are so right, we should ignore the possibility of climate change because there is a chance it might be wrong. Gore is such an alarmist because he is worried about what might happen.
Posted by: tom on May 3, 2007 06:39 AMHmmm, just what planet did this happen on? Was it within 80 million lightyears of reality?
"Of course there was a panal of top ranking military officers who just released a report on the security risks of climate change that said: "Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world"
Well duh! So could collision with an asteroid...
BTW why is your boy the SUPREME GORON such a pathological liar?...
Posted by: juandos on May 3, 2007 06:55 AMWell if you think the U.S. is 80 million lightyears from reality.
"From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion. "
Also the Clinton/Gore years saw average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
As to the security threat. Just do a search for "Security Threat" combined with "Climate Change." More than enought will pop up.
BTW I'll meet your overtly anti-Gore site with one overtly pro-Gore site. www.algoresupportcenter.com/goretruth.html
Posted by: tom on May 3, 2007 08:28 AMRead the book Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years).
It completely decimates each and every Unprovable "Truth" in his comedic documentary.
Did you know the IPCC has been in business since the early 1990s? That they have been releasing these "reports" time and time again -- and when each one was proven false they juggled the numbers to make it come out right?
Posted by: John Bailo on May 3, 2007 08:36 AMThe New York Sun newspaper in 1835 headlined a story called "Celestial Discoveries." According to one article of the series, scientist Sir John Herschel set up his telescope in South Africa's Cape Town and was aghast at what he witnessed on the surface of the Moon.The scientific community was a bit slow, even then, in identifying this news making science as false.
"We counted three parties of these creatures, of twelve, nine and fifteen in each, walking erect towards a small wood... Certainly they were like human beings, for their wings had now disappeared and their attitude in walking was both erect and dignified... About half of the first party had passed beyond our canvas; but of all the others we had perfectly distinct and deliberate view. They averaged four feet in height, were covered, except on the face, with short and glossy copper-colored hair, and had wings composed of a thin membrane, without hair, lying snugly upon their backs from the top of the shoulders to the calves of their legs. The face, which was of a yellowish color, was an improvement upon that of the large orangutan... so much so that but for their long wings they would look as well on a parade ground as some of the old cockney militia. The hair of the head was a darker color than that of the body, closely curled but apparently not woolly, and arranged in two circles over the temples of the forehead. Their feet could only be seen as they were alternately lifted in walking; but from what we could see of them in so transient a view they appeared thin and very protuberant at the heel...We could perceive that their wings possessed great expansion and were similar in structure of those of the bat. . . " Yes, this is the origination of the term MOONBATS which so appropriately describes global warming paranoids.
Posted by: katomar on May 3, 2007 08:43 AMIf Gore were president we would have a higher debt? Really?
Yes, really. He would heavily increases taxes, decreasing productivity and taxable income, and greatly increase the budget to pay for his energy, environmental, and health care plans.
No economist seriously thinks the economic boom in the 90s was due primarily to Clinton's policies, let alone anything Gore did. And while the surplus was the largest in history in nominal dollars, rather than real dollars. And Clinton inherited a much healthier economy than Reagan did, obviously ... yet Reagan's budget years (1981-1988) showed higher productivity than Clinton's (1993-2000). Similarly, the "Bush recession" began because of economic conditions created while Clinton was in office, obviously (it started in March 2000, long before Bush had a chance to implement any economic policies, and the stock market started seriously hurting long before Bush was even nominated, back in winter/spring 1999).
The point is that -- obviously -- Presidents are not primarily responsible for the economies that they operate on top of.
Bush has done so much better than he would have.
As bad as Bush has been on spending, yes, Gore would have been significantly worse.
I'm sure he is completely off on climate change as well.
Not completely, but he certainly is off, absolutely. I already listed several ways he was wrong or misleading, and not a single person has come out to disagree that Gore was wrong in those areas (except for, maybe, Gore himself).
You are so right, we should ignore the possibility of climate change because there is a chance it might be wrong. Gore is such an alarmist because he is worried about what might happen.
I never stated or implied there is no global warming, or that we should do nothing about it. I simply said that Gore is an extremist and that he is using alarmist propaganda to win the debate, rather than reasoned discussion.
Being worried is not alarmist. Spending 10 minutes in a documentary showing simulations of catastrophes that cannot possibly happen in order to scare people into action is alarmist.
George W. Bush is a great President.
Needless to say, the neocon dead-enders can't face the facts.
I wonder when the Iraqis will erect a monument to George W. Bush?
Or when the Congress will authorize a black granite Iraq war monument next to the Vietnam wall?
Posted by: David Mathews on May 3, 2007 09:06 AM> I never stated or implied there is no global warming, or that we should do nothing about it.
Excellent, Pudge, we are making progress!
What should we do about global warming?
Posted by: David Mathews on May 3, 2007 09:09 AM> I never stated or implied there is no global warming, or that we should do nothing about it.
Excellent, Pudge, we are making progress!
What should we do about global warming?
Posted by: David Mathews on May 3, 2007 09:09 AMHope that helps!
Posted by: pudge on May 3, 2007 09:10 AMI never stated or implied there is no global warming, or that we should do nothing about it.
Excellent, Pudge, we are making progress!
You are going to be spending lots of time in the dictionary today! Now please go look up the word "progress." "Progress" means advancing from one point to another. You appear to assume that I either disbelieved global warming is happening, and now believe it. But -- as you should know by looking up the word "fact"! -- I never claimed to have disbelieved it before, nor that I believe it now.
What should we do about global warming?
Who said we CAN do anything? Even the IPCC concedes we may not be able to.
My view is simple, though again, perhaps hard for you to understand: I have studied a lot of data and evidence, and I think it is likely, though not certain, that global warming is happening; and I think there is no significant evidence of any kind that man is causing it, or that we are capable of doing anything about it.
The real inconvenient truth is that we know a lot less than we don't. In fact, we do not know whether global warming is even happening, let alone whether we caused it or can prevent it. My highly scientific mind renders me incapable of coming to a conclusion before the evidence demands it.
James, if the above comments were to be taken seriously, then you should consider comedy. Let's start with your claim that human lives would routinely be murdered. Are you referring to murders like those that were committed on 9/11, one month after Bush was given a CIA release explicating "Bin Laden intent on hitting U.S." via the transportation infrastructure. What does a responsible and mature person like Gore do? Well, I'll tell you what he does not do: turn to the briefer and say, "Now you've covered your ass" and return to his month-long getaway. The man played gold the day AFTER Katrina, which is un upgrade, I guess, from reading My Pet Goat (which he probably would still be doing if Andrew Card had not dragged him away) for seven critical minutes while our nation was under attack. Poverty rate and those without insurance: increased under Bush. Crime rate: increased for first time in decades. Yeah, Sadam would probbaly be in power, though Afghanistan would be stable and Al Queda defeated. What has he done well? Tell me one thing? He lost jobs in his first time (first to do that since Hoover).
James, if the above comments were to be taken seriously
James -- who is on YOUR side here -- made those claims originally. But you are quoting me, restating his claims.
Let's start with your claim that human lives would routinely be murdered. Are you referring to murders like those that were committed on 9/11
No. I was referring to the embryonic stem cell research. It is a biological fact that individual human lives are destroyed during that process. James mentioned embryonic stem cell research would be funded under Gore, and I pointed out in agreement the fact that yes, under Gore, we would be eliminating more individual human lives.
What does a responsible and mature person like Gore do?
No one serious seriously believes Gore would have prevented 9/11. Of course, no one serious seriously believes that the memo you are referencing had any information that could have helped prevent 9/11, either. Serious people look beyond the mere titles of memos.
The man played gold the day AFTER Katrina
So? What would you have had him do? Violate the law by overstepping the authority of the governor?
Poverty rate and those without insurance: increased under Bush.
The former is related more to still feeling the aftereffects of the recession, which was directly caused by the economic conditions created under the Clinton administration. The insurance problem did not begin with Bush, and would be even worse under Gore, because Gore's policies would increase the cost of insurance, and therefore insurance premiums, which would result in fewer insured Americans.
Keep trying!
Crime rate: increased for first time in decades
That is false. Both violent crime and property crime are lower under every year of Bush's presidency, than every one of the previous 20 years; but more directly to your point, we saw significant increases of crime rates in the 80s and early 90s.
It's true that 2005 and 2006 saw the first violent crime rate increases since 1992, but before that we were increasing annually, and we today still have a much lower violent crime rate than when Bush took office. So "decades" is entirely wrong. And the property crime rate increased in 2002 and again in 2004, but has since dropped to below 2000 levels as well.
Look for yourself: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
Now, the preliminary report for 2006 shows an increase of 3.7% for violent crime, and a decrease of 2.6% for property crime. But that 3.7% increase still places 2006 at much lower than the previous 20 pre-Bush years, and even much lower than the 2000 rate.
Keep trying!
Afghanistan would be stable and Al Queda defeated.
You expect ANYONE to believe that? How would Afghanistan be STABLE? It's never been stable. How would Gore have magically done this?
And how would he have defeated al Qaeda by staying only in Afghanistan, when al Qaeda is now an essentially worldwide organization?
And how would he have even defeated al Qaeda in Afghanistan, when to do that would require U.S. troops in Pakistan, which would have started a war with Pakistan?
Be real here.
He lost jobs in his first time (first to do that since Hoover).
That is false. We had a net increase of jobs in Bush's first term. Bush's first full month in office was February 2001, and total nonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted -- which is the universally considered the primary stat for jobs -- was 132.5m. In February 2005, jobs were 132.6m.
The other well-used statistic is total civilian employment. Here he did better: 137.6m to 140.3m.
Of course, these numbers are misleading, because the first year of Bush's term was mostly under Clinton's last budget, and taxes, and economic policies. If you look at Bush's first fiscal year -- October 2001 to October 2005 -- then nonfarm went from 130.8m to 134.7m, and civilian went from 136.4m to 142.6m.
Keep trying!
You convenienetly avoid his golf game the day after Katrina ...
Yes. It is irrelevant. I could not care less. Katrina was handled just fine and nothing the federal government did in the immediate buildup, or immediate aftermath, was a significant problem.
They sure screwed up the rebuilding efforts in some massive ways. That could have been solved by more politicians playing golf.
... or his criminally negligent response to the 8/06/01 CIA release
Ignored? I addressed that directly, by pointing out the fact that the release you refer to did not actually say anything interesting: it told Bush what he already knew, and contained no new information, or details of any operations that would have aided in preventing 9/11. Serious people know this.
And, the Iraw [sic] invasion would have been the equivalent of attacking Brazil in response to Pearl Harbor.
As we did not invade Iraq in response to 9/11, I'll chalk this up to your ignorance (just like your ignorance about Katrina, the CIA report, Bush's record on crime rates and employment, and so on).
I do not think acknowledging a tragedy and not making it look life life was just going swimmingly was against the law
Right, like I said, you are arguing for symbolism over substance. You don't want Bush to have done anything, just not LOOK like he was not doing anything. I could not possibly care less about such entirely meaningless trivialities.
Why do you defend this man?
It is not my intent to do so. My intent is to defend truth, from your many false and misleading accusations.
I don't think I should have to apologize for pointing out facts: that crime is down under Bush and that it was up under Reagan and Bush I; that jobs increased under Bush's first term; that embryonic stem cell research eliminates individual human lives; that the CIA report did not give new information or operational details that could have led to the prevention of 9/11; that there is no evidence Gore could have stopped 9/11; that there is no evidence that Gore could have stabilized Afghanistan or eliminated al Qaeda.
These are facts. That they happen to "defend Bush" is incidental. My goal is defense of truth, not defense of Bush: over the years I've criticized him far more substantively and significantly than you, probably.
Before the war, I heavily criticized Bush for how he was selling the war: that is, focusing on WMD instead of the real reason we invaded, which was to remove a roadblock (Hussein's regime) toward long-term regional liberty, prosperity, and stability (in that order).
I have slammed Bush many times for increasing discretionary spending, for massive increases in the size of unconstitutional social programs, for mishandling the war, for mishandling his staff.
I am not a big fan of Bush. But I think he is far better than the last two Democratic alternatives. As bad as you think Bush is, even if I agreed with everything you said, realize that I think Gore and Kerry are worse than that.
Shrug. It is verifiably true.
Embryonic stem cells are cells that are taken from fertilized eggs leftover from attempts at in vitro fertilization and will be DESTROYED otherwise because they are just that-cells. How are these individual human lives?
Simple. They are unique (that is, have their own DNA) living (frozen, but alive, obviously) organisms of species homo sapiens. Individual human lives. There's really no debating that fact. The only question is whether we grant these individual human lives the same rights as fully gestated humans.
As to the economy under Clinton and Bush, I find it funny that a free-market Republican is arguing that the president can control the economy.
I would find that funny, too. I am sure glad I didn't argue that! Who did?
I was merely correcting factual errors. I did not state or imply that Bush controlled the economy, only that if you're going to compare economies, that he was going about it incorrectly.
In fact, I explicitly stated, "The point is that -- obviously -- Presidents are not primarily responsible for the economies that they operate on top of."
So stop with all these statements about "Clinton's budget" and how it caused a recession in 2001.
I did not say that. I chose my words carefully. I said the recession "was directly caused by the economic conditions created under the Clinton administration." Not BY the Clinton administration, but DURING.
However, we do know that Bush ignored warnings from his own intelligence team about an imminent attack (we know this from Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies and George Tenet's upcoming book)
No, that's not true, in fact. In fact, there is not a single shred of evidence that any warnings were ignored. Perhaps you mean "not acted on appropriately," but that is a bit of question-begging, since "appropriately" in hindsight is far easier to see.
and we also know that when Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora in 2001-2002, Bush outsourced the hunt for him to the Afghanistan military
That's a drastic oversimplification (and Clinton's administration had similar -- and IMO more egregious -- blunders in trying to get Bin Laden ... as Richard Clarke points out in his aforementioned book).
We also know that Bush has hardly mentioned Bin Laden at all in the last 5 years, and that he diverted troops and resources from the hunt for Bin Laden to the Iraq war. Would Gore have done a better job at finding Bin Laden? Tough to say, but it would have been hard for him to do any worse.
I don't think we've done a poor job. We've killed most of his leadership and nearly crippled his ability to act effectively. The few weeks after 9/11 I thought nothing was more important than killing Bin Laden. But as my anger gave way to reason, I realized it is not really important at all. It would be nice, but it is far more important to do things like strengthen the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan.