Thoughts on “truth”
I finally saw “An Inconvenient Truth” last night. Not much was new to me, as I’ve read much more alarming accounts of the planet’s expected fate by some of my Peak Oil buddies like Heinberg, Hartmann, Kunstler, etc. If anything, I though Gore’s treatment of the issue was quite measured and restrained. Considering the wide audience I think this was appropriate. It did make me wish again that he’d brought out his passion for this issue more strongly (at all?) when campaigning for President in 2000. I would bet that he’d have appeared much less stiff and far more human had he done so. It also may have prodded Bush and Cheney to show more of their true colors (i.e., Earth-ravaging, greedy oil men that they were and still are).
It also brought to mind the most disappointing aspect of becoming reacquainting with the world of Robert Anton Wilson in the wake of his death. Though I loved the old coot dearly I did not always agree with him. The most difficult disagreement was in reading through some of his thoughts regarding the Bush vs Gore campaign and particularly the debates. Wilson was in the camp of those who saw little if any difference between the two, going so far as to refer to them consistently as “Gush” and “Bore.” His favored candidate was the one also backed by Wavy Gravy in his famous “Nobody for President” campaign. Wilson thought Nobody was a much favored alternative to either Gush or Bore and considered the whole campaign, and particularly the debates as a “laughfest.” Though his later writings often lambasted Bush in no gentle terms, indicating that the consistently mirthful Bob may not have been laughing any longer at the horrible effects of the ill advised choice of Bush, he never went so far as to forgive Gore for having placed him in equivalence with the idiot in chief.
I could see why Bob, and other thoughtful individuals, would have difficulty seeing the differences prior to Bush’s ruinous reign. They were both politicians who had accumulated the vast wealth required to run for President by appealing to special interests to raise cash in abundance, making typical politician promises. Gore, by association with Clinton could be expected to maintain popularity by triangulation like his old boss, but with far less of his charisma. There was also the whole Tipper Gore campaign against naughty words nonsense which would seriously taint her husband in Wilson’s filthy potter-stewarting mind. I don’t know if Bob ever got to see “An Inconvenient Truth” before he died, but I kind of hope he had a chance to see the Gore that in many ways is the anti-Bush. He showed in that documentary that he is, like Wilson was, a true futurist with a positive vision for humanity far beyond the posturing of a typical politician.
That’s an awesome assessment Max, not so much on the movie but the perennial question of the differences, if any, between Rs and Ds. I think you’ve built a strong case for there being quite significant differences between them, or at least between Tush and Soar.
Comment on January 15, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
No one ever said RAW wasn’t a cranky hyper-liberal.
Oh, wait. Someone did. Commander Pigeonhole, Google-Monkey.
My father-in-law saw Truth and decided to research the subject further by auditing a course at Berkeley on it; he showed me an article by the professor that concluded that Gore had presented only the most superficial and simplistic evidence, and that much more profound evidence was available in studies of ice cores. This was his only objection to the film.
This from an ex-oil-industry-executive. Who helped elect Democrats in the last election for the first time in his life, for which I am so proud of him.
I remember lots of young Greens at a Halloween party I went to, objecting to my Gore/Lieberman (Feinstein!) T-shirt. They would ask what my costume was, and I would answer ‘a recalcitrant Green’, to which a scorn storm inevitably erupted. Gore and Bush were EXACTLY alike, they claimed, to which I replied, ‘You have no idea what you’re saying. Al Gore would be the most liberal man ever elected in the history of the world. Bush is a Proto-Nazi.’
They would agree, but then reply that they thought he wasn’t QUITE Green enough, and that we should go ahead and elect the TreeKiller, because then people would LEARN just how bad the GOP was for the environment, and would never elect another one after that.
To which I replied, ‘Hope there’s some trees left after your lesson is over.’
Looking on at our Tonkinese-Iranian raids, I STILL wonder — how do they feel now? Had enough? Changed their minds? Perhaps a little more willing to compromise JUST A FUCKING TAD?
(Scream of Frustration, here. Loud.)
Comment on January 16, 2007 @ 12:07 am
They voted for Nader.
“you’ll reap the harvest you have sown”
Comment on January 16, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
This brings to mind “you’re either with us or against us”. What does Gore stand for? I think he’s for a significantly more progressive environmental stance than the powers that be are, obviously, but I see the difference as more of a quantitative one that a qualitative shift. The latter would be not only pushing for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, alternative fuel development, etc. but, for instance, an effort to transform the growth economy into something truly sustainable. I don’t see Gore going there but I don’t necessarily see the Greens going there either. If not, neither Gore nor the Greens are truly “with us”. Because they only represent another, more progressive version of the status quo, they are “against us”, assuming, of course, that we agree that the current system is what is driving global warming. Maybe someone can show me that the Greens are pushing for true sustainability.
Comment on January 17, 2007 @ 7:02 am
I do not believe there has ever been a coalescent Left, not in the whole damn history of the planet. Coalescent Right, however, seems a common thing. Lefty Individualists and Righty Groupthinkers. Sterotypes that just Are. Lefty Herd-o-Cats and Righty Sheeples.
Am I wrong? ‘Because if such close friends should ever fall out — what would there be left worth fighting about?’
— I find myself wondering, O Senrabian One, who received your vote in that election. Ahem.
Comment on January 17, 2007 @ 7:43 am
“…who received your vote…”
This isn’t really a relevant question in my opinion. Past votes votes may have a lingering effect on current policy, but they have very little on the policies of the future. It’s how people will vote in 2008 and beyond that should concern us. The scumbags that got elected for whatever reason are serving now and must be dealt with. Even if you were one of the horrid greens (or worse) that helped the chief scumbag to his position of magnificent incompetence and malice, it doesn’t mean you can’t help to oppose him and others of his ilk with the full vigor of your being now and in the future.
Comment on January 17, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Tangential to our discussion on this topic, there's a scuffle brewing on some of the lefty blogs about what constitutes true and valid liberalism. I captured this little gem from a recent posting:
What's not mentioned is the awful question: what happens when Noam decides he's clean enough and it's time to drain the tub?
It's well worth reading the full post.
Comment on January 17, 2007 @ 9:48 am
But how else can we administer the Ultra-Absolutist Liberal Test of Belonginess? Exclusion is what Liberaliness is all about, according to Cmdr. Pigeoto. This ‘Big Tent’ and ‘Forgive and Forget Before We All Go Over The Edge’ stuff neglects the essential task of dividing all humanity into the tiniest possible opposition groups.
For instance — this Aldous fellow — he’s very tall and large, right? That means he’s consuming MORE than others. That’s BAD.
Plus, he’s not a Marksist, last I checked. Some sort of Buddyist, I think, whatever THAT is. It sounds BAD.
Plus, he’s in graduate school, which means he buys into the whole System. He’s one of them. He’s BAD. EXCLUDE HIM.
Sorry — some of the Byronius voices need to be EXCLUDED. Not properly ABSORBED or DEDICATED to the ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES of MarkieMarkism.
Comment on January 17, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Here's kos with some fighting words for the pigeonholers out there…
Comment on January 17, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
People of Elitist Academics hereby protest.
We Now Exclude You.
Comment on January 17, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
I find myself wondering, oh suspiciously way left of center NW-proto-not-green enough-crypto-naderites, who of you may have squandered my vote in that election.
Examining past decisions in the light of new evidence seems relevent indeed.
Comment on January 17, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
[...] Recent related posts: Thoughts on "truth", Truth Pt 2 [...]
Pingback on January 23, 2007 @ 10:26 am