Yikes. First you don't want this topic discussed by the list, next
you go on a rant that seems to demand a response. What's it to be?
>Of course, the really irritating thing that brought this on is the way that
>people CONTINUE to pillory Gore for things that he never actually said. He
>never said that he invented the internet
Apologists for Gore always use the line, "He didn't actually say that
he invented the Internet!" They assume that such protestations will
be the end of the discussion. If I were trying to defend someone
whom I thought had been misquoted, I would show the actual quote to
show the fools the error of their ways. In roughly a dozen such
encounters on the Internet, I've yet to see them try the tactic. The
reason, I believe, is that the actual quote wouldn't help them at all.
Here's the actual quote, with some context from his interview with
Wolf Blitzer on March 9, 1999.
I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six
years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be
important to our country's economic growth and environmental
protection, improvements in our educational system.
To many people, it seems that Al Gore was taking credit for the
Internet. It's certainly the way that I understood what he was
saying when I saw the original interview.
>This uproar over the speech is another
>thing in the same vein. I would challenge you to say something, anything,
>so long as it is coherent, that had not been said or written by someone else
>at some point in the history of language.
I agree with you in the sense that if this were an isolated incident,
everyone is making too much of it. However, you have to keep in mind
that Al Gore has a reputation for embellishment and even outright
lying. It's hard to blame anyone but him for reinforcing that
reputation.
Ask Dan Quayle about being ridiculed for making small mistakes.
Misspelling potato was such a minor thing. I mean, the plural has an
'e', and even the reporters in the room at the time had to look up
the word to be sure of the mistake. Misspelling a word on the spot
like that is so unimportant, but it didn't stop the press and the
entertainment industry from nailing Quayle to the wall over it.
>Though, unlike a certain
>President-elect, Mr. Gore does write much of his own material, and
>it comes off
>as lucid if a bit staid.
So, you're going to continue to take these little potshots at Bush,
and then get upset when people snipe at Gore? Can you say "special
pleading"?
>I forgot - Mr. Gore doesn't get any benefit of the doubt. Mr. Bush has all
>that.
Oh, man... too bad I can't play the violin. Dan Rather was
practically crying the other night after Gore's speech, and the other
broadcast anchors were hardly any better at maintaining a modicum of
objectivity. Did you watch *any* late-night television during the
past year? Sure, they poked fun at Gore's lack of a personality, but
they were utterly relentless at portraying Bush as a total idiot.
Spare me the pity party for the benefit of the doubt that Gore never
received.
> Why else would so many people who claim to be futurist oriented would
>cast out the technocrat who has worked through much of his proven legislative
>career (unlike a certain limited-experience executive with little to any
>public-record experience on anything)
There ya go again, another pot shot. I'd say that George Bush's
experience in the business world is far more relevant to me than Al
Gore's lifetime of never having a real job.
> supporting technological causes, in favor
>of someone who would throw money raided from taxpayers (not my rhetoric, but
>the rhetoric I see here all the time about taxation of any kind) at faith-
>based (church) organizations with a deathist,
Huh? I've heard him talking about the benefits of relying on
faith-based and other charitable organizations to fill some needs in
our society, but you'll need to refer us to where he talked about
sending taxpayer dollars that way.
>reactionary agenda that will,
>probably sooner than later, come to a head against extropian values?
On the one hand, we have Al Gore who would slow the R&D of
pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry to a crawl through
the socialization of medicine, price fixing of drugs, typical Green
Peace overreaction to GM food, and letting his buddies the trial
lawyers continue to be the main recipients of every medical dollar
spent.
On the other hand, we have Bush who would be much less of an
obstruction to the private research of biotechnologies, but may butt
heads with us at some future date when we're ready to actually use
these technologies. Most likely, he won't even be in office then.
Hmmmmmm.
> Or
>does it have to do with being bought off by the bribe of a large tax-cut that
>will not benefit many of the people here on this list?
From www.georgebush.com:
His plan will promote economic growth and increase access to
the middle class by cutting high marginal rates. It will also
double the child credit, eliminate the death tax, reduce the
marriage penalty, and expand Education Savings Accounts
and charitable deductions.
Sheesh, almost every part of that plan will benefit me, except for
the death tax cut, and contrary to what Randy Smith said in this
thread, some of it is for single people too.
As far as being "bought off" goes, allowing people to keep more of
the money that they and their family members earn is much less of a
bribe than stealing money from the workers in our society (in the
form of taxes) to buy the votes of those who are less
industrious/capable/fortunate (in the form of entitlements).
>I have serious doubts about Mr. Bush's committment to expanding possibilities
>of any kind, unless of course you happen to be wealthy, heterosexual, and
>religious.
"expanding possibilities"? If I wanted some government wonk to
decide the future of my nation's technology direction, I'd move to
France. I want George Bush to get government off our f***ing backs
and out of our wallets. I want government out of our way so that we
as entrepreneurs and consumers can expand the possibilities. The
first step is for someone in our government to admit that they're in
our way. George Bush has had the "let the people decide what to do
with their own money" mantra in his arsenal from the beginning. In
contrast, Al Gore has a government solution to every problem
imaginable.
>And worst of all, the real difference between the two comes down to a matter
>of degree. If Al Gore is a socialist for defending Medicare, et al, why then
>is Bush not pilloried for taking the same stands, simply with the numbers
>changed a bit, and often to a lesser degree? This isn't the reductionist
>rhetoric of the Gingrivh Revolution (tm), but the incremental coopting and
>"triangulation" pioneered by the right's favorite pol to hate, Bill Clinton.
Time out while I agree with you. In a way, I found this to be the
most disappointing part of GWB's campaign - the capitulation to the
prescription drug and medicare interests. You're absolutely right
that this was a classic Bill Clinton tactic, but like guerilla
warfare, once it was introduced into the battlefield, it had to be
met with similar tactics, or allowed to rule the day.
>I will give Bush a chance to govern, and maybe he will prove me wrong.
I'll give him a call on the big red phone and let him know it's okay
to proceed. I'm sure he'll be grateful for the opportunity. :)
>In the California senate race, there were two candidates facing off - Diane
>Feinstein, Democrat, and Tom Campbell, Republican. They both had solid stands
>on issues, they articulated many of them, and both had records to choose from.
>Most people will think I supported Feinstein. Think again. I felt the better
>leader would have been Campbell, in part because of his stand on the War on
>Some Drugs, and his support of personal freedom. (Feinstein never met a gun
>control law she didn't like, or an expansion of police powers she didn't like,
>either).
Well, good for you. I support a lot of what the ACLU does, and
always vote against overtly Fundy Christian Republicans when I have
the chance (Gary Bauer & Pat Robertson types). Are we all
sufficiently independent and objective now?
>This is why partisanship is such a bad thing. I guess I was disappointed to
>find this particular virulent strain of political fundamentalism amongst
>intelligent people who have an avowed interest and investment in the future.
With the implication being that you don't think that intelligent
people could support George W. Bush... and you say that "partisanship
is such a bad thing."
Pot... kettle...
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:37 MDT