Crossposted from Town Called Dobson


click to enlarge

Since Russ Feingold will not be running for President, I will now be endorsing Al Gore for President for 2008. I am asking anybody who supported Russ Feingold for President to support Al Gore for President so we can restore the rule of law to the White House and restore the system of checks and balances to our Constitutional system.

Like many of us, I was not enthused by Al Gore in 2000. I voted for Nader as a way of pushing the Democratic party to the left and thus creating a Green Revolution. I thought that Bush would not be that bad of a President anyway, as he would be bipartisan and supposedly be above the fray. In the meantime, we could move the party and the country to the left and everybody would be happy.

George Bush ain't gonna see it and Jeb Bush, W's brother and banana republic governor, said he'd rather see "X-Men."  All the more reason you should get a group of friends and family this July 4th weekend to see my former boss and friend Al Gore's documentary on global warming.   Since its release a few weeks back, "An Inconvenient Truth"  has received fantastic reviews and is a huge success -- already the #10 documentary of all time.

It is clear, though, that the right-wing, the White House, and the oil companies are going to fight this thing to the end.  Bush this week insisted yet again that there is a real scientific debate about whether global warming is caused by human interactions.  Truth is, except for scientists bought and paid for by Exxon and employed in the White House, there is no scientific dispute whatsoever.  And, to predictable laughter, when asked a few weeks ago whether he would be open-minded enough to see the movie, W dismissed the idea with a smarty-pants "Doubt it."

Even if you know a lot about global warming -- go see "An Inconvenient Truth" anyway as a political action. Even better, send an email to your entire network urging the same thing.  Paramount Studios is showing the film in more than 500 theaters all around the country.  You can find the one nearest you on this website.

The other day I went to see "An Inconvenient Truth," which turned out to be surprisingly moving.  I was stunned when the form Veep discussed the disparity between the consensus of the academic community and its portrayal in the media.  In a sample of 10% of the published material on global warming in academic journals, there was no dissent whatsoever from the consensus that it was occurring, while a similar sample of the media had 53% offering dissenting accounts.

Today I logged on to Brad Delong's site and found this depressing post.  Add it to the shoddy reporting that went into the TNR-DailyKos dust up, and you really have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that the crisis of political discourse in our country has less to due with our elected officials and those that elect them, and a lot more to do those that cover them.  Why does it seem that professionals in this country--with the significant exception of the academic community (who could do a lot better job, btw, of conveying their views to a public that desparately needs them)--why have professionals become so lazy and indifferent to the consequences of their words and actions?

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in chastising New York Times chief national political reporter Adam Nagourney for having interviewed Al Gore about his new movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Nagourney responds via email (permission granted to reprint here):

Jonathan:

I absolutely would have seen, and will see, the documentary. The problem was I had no advance warning that Al Gore was going to call me to do the interview. I had put in a request and was told no, and two hours later, he was on the telephone. I certainly was not going to lie to him, and I thought that exchange was worth sharing with readers. As  rule, I do not do interviews with authors, film-makers, etcetera, without having read their book or seen their movie.

For all that, I'm 90 percent sure it just opened in Washington this weekend, so to write for Sunday (the effective deadline is Friday night) I would have either had to arrange to get a videotape or find a special screening.

I will see the movie next weekend. I have read Earth in the Balance, as I'm sure you have, and find it very enlightening.

Adam

I still like what Gore had to say to Nagourney -- that "political scribes have to take off their cynical lenses through which they view every moral challenge as political spin" -- but given Nagourney's explanation, I was wrong to attack for writing the story and interviewing the former Vice President without having seen the documentary first.

So I haven't seen an Inconvenient Truth yet, but I did see the presentation and it was impressive and terrifying.

Use this thread to talk about Al Gore or an Inconvenient Truth.  Or X-Men III.

With all of the focus on Al Gore these days as a result of his successful new movie, it was only a matter of time before New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney jumped on the bandwagon and penned a piece on the former two-term Vice President. But judging by the article, which runs in the Sunday Times, Gore was well prepared to combat Nagourney's often excessive focus on the political horserace over substance.

"Stop covering politics; cover the climate crisis. It is not too late!" he said, with a boom of laughter.

"Have you read my book?" he asked a moment later. "Have you seen the movie?" Mr. Gore cluck-clucked at the "not yet but I will" response.

[...]

"We need to shift gears in corporate America and in our politics and in our economy and in our culture," he said. "Most of all, political scribes have to take off their cynical lenses through which they view every moral challenge as political spin."

Truth be told, I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" -- though to be fair it hasn't opened yet in Portland -- nor have I read the book. But if I were about to interview Al Gore at least in part about his movie and book -- particularly were I the chief national political reporter for The Times -- I probably would have made the effort to either read the book or see the movie rather than simply make assumptions that fit into my own political narrative.

Not only does Gore call Nagourney's bluff by pointedly asking him if he had actually read the book or seen the movie, the former VP also rightfully attacks the "cynical lenses through which [reporters] view every moral challenge as political spin."

Regardless of what the Washington media believe, the primary reason behind "An Inconvenient Truth" is not to rescussitate Gore's political career but rather to draw attention to an issue Gore has cared about for decades. And if they can't understand that -- instead writing endless analysis pieces about how this is all a big scheme by Gore to set the groundwork for a presidential campaign in 2008 -- they are missing the boat and are fundamentally disconnected from the jobs they actually should be doing.