Rationalizing Wrong-Doing: Al Gore as a Case Study

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, May 31. 2006

Rationalizing Wrong-Doing: Al Gore as a Case Study

Welcome,� visitors from all over the world! Please visit us often - or bookmark us. Check us out, while you are here. We are always interesting, often provocative, and always eclectic and suprising.

For us head-shrinkers, public figures make for great case examples, because there is no confidentiality issue. The downside, of course, is that we don't really know them in any depth. All we have are public words and behavior.

Al Gore offered us a nice example last week when he stated, about his admittedly propagandizing and fear-mongering�movie Inconvenient Truths:

"...I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

So it is appropriate to lie? Should we�re-name it�Convenient Lies? �

Although this is not the first time Big Al has made similar statements about his choices (the "no controlling legal authority" case), I will not throw stones, because I do not claim to be perfect. Instead, I'll just take a minute to look at the meaning of�his statement.

I take it as a given that all humans are prone to immoral thoughts and to�wrong-doing, or temptations for wrong-doing: there would be no need for laws, rules, or morals if that were not so. And it is known that, while a small fraction of the population lacks any meaningfully-functioning conscience, most people have consciences of varying degrees of strength and effectiveness. Whenever we "size up" a new person, that is always an essential item on the list.

The conscience functions by sending up warnings to us when we are heading into behavior we feel might be morally questionable; by punishing us with guilt or shame or remorse when we cross our moral lines; by rewarding us with the wonderful feeling of self-respect when we follow our moral expectations;�and by holding up for us an ideal of who and what our best self could be. Living with one's conscience is one of the great challenges of being an adult: we struggle with it, and sometimes we win, sometimes we lose.

There are a number of tricks we can�play on our conscience, though, in an effort to make it leave us alone and give us a free pass. Our case example of the day highlights one of the most effective tricks: Rationalizing.

What Gore said - and I believe that he believes what he said - is that it is OK for him to deceive the public by distorting and cherry-picking and exaggerating facts, because it's for a good cause and because he means well. (No doubt he rationalized illegal fund-raising with a similar justification. Hey - everything can be a "crisis", right?) �

Translated, this says: "If my intentions are good, or if I have a good excuse, then the�ends justify the means and my inconvenient�morality can take a vacation." (When you think about it, though, morals are always "inconvenient." Always. The Ten Commandments were a great gift to our better selves, from a God who well�knew our weaknesses and flaws, and who longs for the best for us and from us, but who offers us the respect to make our own choices.)

That form of thinking is enormously corrupt and corrupting, because it can justify anything - lies, theft, mass murder, adultery, injustice, mayhem, exploitation, cruelty,�disloyalty - you name it. To use this trick, all you need to do is to convince yourself that you are aggrieved, or that "everybody does it," �or that you are such a superb person that you are on the side of the angels -�and you get a free pass from your conscience. No wonder it's such a popular self-deception for those with, shall we say, "flexible" consciences, aka serious�moral flaws.

If you can believe that the angels are on your side, or that you are a victim, or that you are better than other people -�anything goes (especially if you can burnish it with a gloss of phony idealism or victim entitlement). How damnably convenient!

Matthew 16: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

Image: I like the image of Jiminy Cricket as the representative of our conscience. We all need him, perched on our shoulder and�whispering into our ear, at all times. If you want to enjoy yourself in the�short-term - ignore him. He is a party-pooper but, in the end, he is on your side.

Editor's note: For an honest and rational discussion of the greenhouse effect, try Junk Science. And click on�our blog headline to read more posts this week responding to this piece, and to the commenters on this piece.

Posted by Dr. Joy Bliss in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 05:55 | Comments (174) | Trackbacks (6)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

A well-deserved Oscar
I do not watch Academy Awards, but I see Al won his statue. Deservedly so - he is as phoney as everything else in Tinseltown.As Michaels points out in NRO:In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland

Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Feb 26, 06:37

Sunday Links
Watch the documentary Bird Dog posted last night. It's about an hour, but it goes fast. The new bumper sticker: "Gore Lied: Children Cried." Indeed, Gore admitted lying in his movie.�His rationale for doing so? "A greater good."WaPo:

Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Mar 11, 08:21

Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Mar 11, 08:31

Sunday Links: Gore Lied: Children Cried
Watch the documentary Bird Dog posted last night. It's about an hour, but it goes fast. The new bumper sticker: "Gore Lied: Children Cried." Indeed, Gore admitted lying in his movie.�His rationale for doing so? "A greater good."WaPo:

Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Mar 11, 08:32

Sunday Links: Gore Lied - Children Cried
Watch the documentary Bird Dog posted last night. It's about an hour, but it goes fast. The new bumper sticker: "Gore Lied: Children Cried." Indeed, Gore admitted lying in his movie.�His rationale for doing so? "A greater good."WaPo:

Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Mar 11, 08:33

Updated -Sunday Links: Gore Lied - Children Cried
Watch the documentary Bird Dog posted last night. It's about an hour, but it goes fast. The new bumper sticker: "Gore Lied: Children Cried." Indeed, Gore admitted lying in his movie.�His rationale for doing so? "A greater good."Powerl

Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Mar 11, 11:33

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

As Dan "False But Accurate" Rather said of Bubba:

"I think at the core he's an honest person . . . I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2005/04/i_can_certainly.html

#1 Sissy Willis (Link) on 2006-05-31 08:51 (Reply)

I think I would rather have Al Gore lying about the possible effects of global warming than have the current President lying to Congress and the American people with regards to the legitimacy of a foreign war.

Not saying that what Gore did was right, but how many people are going to die as a result of his "misinterpretations"?

#1.1 Cashcleaner on 2006-05-31 13:10 (Reply)

You could not have offered a better example for the author if you had tried.

Once the lefties agreed on the lie that Bush lied, everything can be excused- "It is okay that Gore lied because his lie is not as bad as Bush's (alleged) lie"

Beautiful...convenient...a remarkable demonstration of moral wishy-washiness. Do you feel better about yourself (and Gore) now?

#1.1.1 John on 2006-05-31 14:36 (Reply)

So what about your lie that Bush didn't lie?

#1.1.1.1 nerd on 2006-05-31 14:53 (Reply)

Umm, but he didn't lie. That's the greatest lie lefties like to tell. Bush didn't lie anymore then Clinton lied about the chemical factory in the Sudan.

Can we drag Clinton off to the Hague because analysts told him a baby-food factory in the Sudan was a chemical WMD factory??

#1.1.1.1.1 Rolf on 2006-05-31 15:44 (Reply)

These are probably what people mean by bush's lies:

�[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.�

-misleading at best attempt to use vengence for 9/11 as an excuse

�America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.�

-then why arbitrarily start the bombing campaign when Hussain caved in already to the inspectors.

�Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.�

- I think the fist part is covered above. Taking every effort to win it might have involved securing a northern front in Turkey through better diplomacy or failing that getting the armored division that was intended to be there placed before starting the war. Or for that matter ensuring there was a sufficient troop level to immediately sustain law and order instead of trying to do things on the cheap.

but my personal favorite:

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"

-except of course everyone who was in that meeting paying attention when Brownie said (on tape) the levees might be breached. I guess the president wasn't paying attention but since he said "anybody" not "I didn't anticipate" it's still a lie. And a stupid one at that since many people for years have anticipated the levee's breaching.

Oh but if you read Gore's comments in context,
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html
its pretty straight forward what he is saying and in no way is an admitance to a lie or exageration or anything else. If you look at what he actually said about the internet, its pretty much the same case there too.

"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."

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Apart from saying initiative too many times, in truth he was the essential force behind getting the funding that created the internet.

#1.1.1.1.1.1 Stefan on 2006-05-31 22:40 (Reply)

I retract the comment with regards to Gore lying. Over-representation means telling the truth a lot.

I'd like to change my post to say that while Bush lied about the legitimacy of war, Gore did NOT lie with regards to his new movie.

Thank-you and good night.

#1.1.1.2 Cashcleaner on 2006-06-01 20:06 (Reply)

Close, but entirely wrong! "over present" means telling the truth a lot - not "over represent". (ok, sure, I suppose it was just another "speachrobe malfunction"

#1.1.1.2.1 Herb on 2006-06-01 21:16 (Reply)

Gah! I'm bad at this. Speechrobe malfunction indeed.

To set the record straight (again, L*)

Gore didn't lie, as much as he just really told the truth. Which, I suppose to some, means he lied.

#1.1.1.2.1.1 Cashcleaner on 2006-06-02 11:07 (Reply)

Not saying that what Gore did was right, but how many people are going to die as a result of his "misinterpretations"?

An interesting question, and not nearly as facetious as you no doubt intended.

Let's assume, for the moment, that Gore's lies do exactly what they're designed to do, to get people to advocate government controls on carbon emissions and energy use.

If we reduce carbon emissions to the level called for by the Kyoto Protocols, it will require a reduction of as much as 30% of our energy use. One presumes that this will produce serious ramifications to our economy. Poverty is the number one reducer of life expectancy. So the reduction in our own economy could take years off of each person's life.

With a reduced economy, millions will be jobless - money that could have paid their wages went to higher energy costs. Some of them, unable to feed themselves, or their children, will starve to death.

Our agriculture industry is extremely petroleum-driven - one of my ecological science professors described modern agriculture as "the use of soil to convert oil into food." With less energy to the purpose of growing, fertilizing, and harvesting crops, there will be less food to share, and the price of said food will go up. Eventually, some people at the margins will starve to death.

With less energy, people will be colder in the winter, hotter in the summer (no AC in Phoenix?). Some of those people will die, either frozen to death, or from heat exposure.

How many people would die if Gore had his way? It's impossible to say. But if his lies cause people to adopt the extreme measures Gore advocates (which is the "laudable" purpose behind those lies), I can pretty much guarantee it won't be zero.

#1.1.2 Redhawke on 2006-05-31 18:06 (Reply)

You obviously don't understand how to fight global warming. Kyoto is useless. What we need to do is find fuels and energy sources that efficient with respect to emissions--not lower total energy use! If we abided by Kyoto, over the course of 50 years there would be a total of 1% less greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere--hardly an effective strategy.

Greenhouse gasses are an air pollution problem, so why don't we treat it like one? We have effective, market-friendly ways to combat air pollution that we have used all over (e.g. smog in LA, which has been incredibly effective). Create tradable pollution permits to give corporations a financial incentive to reduce the crap they are dumping into the atmosphere. This will spur development of more efficient means of energy.

We can't suddenly reduce the amount of energy we consume, we can only make it more efficient using market forces!

As for Gore: I lean left, and I know Gore is an incredibly smart individual from his speeches (not campaign speeches), but in any case misrepresentation of the facts is not good even if it is for a "good cause." If you cannot convince someone of your argument without lying, maybe your argument doesn't have much merit to begin with. That's what I live by.

#1.1.2.1 vestex on 2006-05-31 22:48 (Reply)

That remains to be seen. What if the bozos on the bus win control of the gov't and begin to pass laws that restrict more and more resources in the name of global warming prevention? How many people have already died because of the inintended consequences of past restrictions on energy production, food production etc.?

#1.1.3 theproblem on 2006-06-01 00:35 (Reply)

Oh, hold on a second. At very close examination it reads..."OVER--representation of facts".

Hmmm, that's not so much lying as it is telling the truth over and over so people understand the point.

That's almost like the complete opposite of lying.
I wonder if people are still going to argue against it.

#1.1.4 Cashcleaner on 2006-06-01 20:01 (Reply)

Where is the lie? Over representation of what compared to what? In the context of the full interview it pretty clear he meant an over representation of factual representations of the problem compared to representations of the solution. Gore then goes on to say that this may shift more towards a solution oriented discussion as time progresses. It seems clear that someone is underly factually representing this quote out of context. OR else they're just too simple.

I mean really, take an occam's razor approach. Does it make more sense that Gore would admit in an interview about exagerating the facts about what he considers to be one of the most pressing problems facing the world, or does it make more sense that he was answering the question he was aske about: "Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?"

My guess here is that someone's bedroom window is made out of bricks.

#1.2 Stefan on 2006-05-31 20:49 (Reply)

Well put. I tried to avoid the political implications in this piece, but they do offer themselves up on a silver platter - do they not?

#2 Dr. Bliss on 2006-05-31 09:15 (Reply)

yes the political implications are obvious, you obviously either didn't read the whole article, were too simple to make sense of a pretty straight foward discussion, or are blatently politically biased and chose to take the quote out of context to misrepresent the truth. in case you or anyone else would like to read the whole interview here's the link:

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html

You know as tired as I am about people lying, I'm pretty damn tired of wussy assed lefties assuming that what ever premise given is true and trying to argue from there. Don't be lazy, know what's going on. And think for your self. When you know the other side lies and cheats you don't fking let them set the rules. If something sounds idiotic and doesn't make sense check the premise, it may well be wrong. Think for your self damn it.

#2.1 Stefan on 2006-05-31 21:04 (Reply)

Well put. I tried to avoid the political implications in this piece, but they do offer themselves up on a silver platter - do they not?

#3 Dr. Bliss on 2006-05-31 09:16 (Reply)

The Shrink is wise. Shrink speak truth to power!

#4 Amy on 2006-05-31 09:26 (Reply)

Sorry for commenting so often - but you have Big Al's number!

#5 Lorraine in Tennessee on 2006-05-31 09:35 (Reply)

You're an idiot. He didn't say he was lying. He said there's too much information. Learn to read, dipshit.

#6 AJ on 2006-05-31 10:20 (Reply)

I have found that anyone who uses profanity has spent more time with his (or her) own anger than in finding the actual truth.

#6.1 danielpauldavis on 2006-05-31 14:10 (Reply)

Profanity or not, he's 100% accurate. How do you equate "we put too many facts in the movie" with "we lied"????

#6.1.1 Gavin (Link) on 2006-05-31 16:07 (Reply)

"...I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous..."

what he's saying is the fact is 2+2=4, we say that 2+2=7. It's okay that we do that because the alarmist 7 answer scares people more than the actual 4 answer, and this is important so it's better that people are more scared.

#6.1.1.1 David Mears on 2006-05-31 17:41 (Reply)

Actually if you read the article dipshit

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html

What gore is saying is that for now we have to emphasise the "2+2" part a whole lot until everyone actually figures out its important. Then maybe we can shift the discussion towards "=4".

he takes this approach because most of the public doesn't know their math so to speak, or rather their heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, etc.

#6.1.1.1.1 Stefan on 2006-05-31 21:48 (Reply)

I find the use of profanity especially helpful to represent emphasis within the cold confines of text based internet forum discussions. "dipshit" is really one you don't see too often, and really quite for a connoisseur. Its very concise and easily executed, though greatly underused, which I believe is part of the beauty of it. It pretty much sums up a great deal of sentiment but at the same time emphasises that the subject isn't really worth any elaboration beyond just "dipshit"

All and all my favorite is the phrase "mealy-mouthed Son of a bitch" from the German Mehl im Maule behalten, �to carry meal in the mouth, that is, not to be direct in speech,� which occurs the writings of Martin Luther in combination with the age old notion that someones mother was a dog, implying that they themselves are half mutt and that their father lays with the beasts. The inference is that it is their unwillingness to directly confront the truth of the matter that gives them away as less than a man and more cowardly as an animal, an animal that can both be very vicious in serving its master, but also brought to heal.

My only qualm is that I really like dogs well enough and hate to see them tarred by association with those who would get called SOB's.

It seems to me that anyone who uses a phrase like "spends too much time with their anger" isn't entirely comfortable with that emotion in themselves. Anger is a pretty straight forward reaction to pain or percieved injustice. The point is to motivate and facilitate action in remedy of that undesireable state. Otherwise you either are depressed (aware of the injustice but unmotivated to act), apathetic, or willfully ignorant. No one ever started a revolution staying in their "happy zone", if your not comfortable spending time with your anger you might as well be an opium addict.

#6.1.2 Stefan on 2006-05-31 21:38 (Reply)

actually make that-- fucking useless lame ass dead beat cancer on mother fucking society opium fucking addict. I like the sound of it better. Gets the point across better.

Also, sorry for any misspellings above or incorrect homophone's I know some people are sensitive about poor grammer.

#6.1.2.1 Stefan on 2006-05-31 22:10 (Reply)

It would be nice if you could identify any of these so called 'lies' in your trashing of Gore. Because if you can't, what you wrote is empty rhetoric, devoid of any value.

#7 JH on 2006-05-31 10:29 (Reply)

"over-representation of factual presentations" means taking the truth and repeating many different ways, which in context means ramming the truth down your thrioat. Someone should have done this to you in grammar class because clearly you do not understand the English language. Go get a college degree (if they'll let you) and try again, asshat.

GED + ADD != intelligence

No wonder everyone thinks Americans are stupid...you are proving them correct.

#8 JDC on 2006-05-31 10:33 (Reply)

and don't forget to list spelling..........

#8.1 Anonymous on 2006-05-31 11:45 (Reply)

After all - Big Al did invent the Internet, didn't he????

#9 JoJo on 2006-05-31 10:59 (Reply)

Actually, no. No he didn't. Nor did he ever claim to.

#9.1 Steve Murray on 2006-05-31 11:10 (Reply)

Actually, he did claim to have invented the Internet. He also claims to have been at his sisters death bed. He also decried the use of tobacco while accepting tobacco subsidies... 24 years of feeding at the public trough. For a blind man, you sure look good in those rose colored glasses.

#9.1.1 You must have taken Ethics from Al on 2006-05-31 11:33 (Reply)

No, Al Gore did not claim to invent the internet... You dumbass right wingers..

#9.1.1.1 dude on 2006-05-31 12:05 (Reply)

Actually, Gore did claim to invent the intarweb, which he ceverly called "The web"!" What a clever fellow!

#9.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 2006-05-31 12:40 (Reply)

This is for all the clowns starting with JoJo

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False.

I think it's stupid as shiat to "over-represent" the facts. It takes the focus away from the message & puts it squarely on the "over-representation"

Playing fast and loose with the facts is how bad information gets passed around, kinda like "Al Gore claims he invented the internet".

#9.1.1.1.1.1 Sum Guy on 2006-05-31 13:32 (Reply)

You are both right.

In a 1999 Wolf Blitzer interview on CNN, Gore said:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Gore did not mean the Internet as we know it today, but he clearly did use those words.

#9.1.1.1.1.2 Anonymous on 2006-05-31 14:41 (Reply)

Yeah...and just last month or so Gore was given an award specifically for his role in helping to create the internet as we know it today.

So who should we believe. The groups handing out awards...or people who only want to hate and smear?

#9.1.1.1.1.2.1 Rosencrantz on 2006-05-31 15:02 (Reply)

Gore's comment is very difficult to even understand without seeing it in context. It certainly doesnt seem, at face-value, to be any kind of admission to lying or anything else unconscionable.

#10 KGF on 2006-05-31 11:05 (Reply)

You know, it seems to me that if you're going down this rhetorical road, an examination of a similar mindset would be in order.

Like, oh, I dunno - perhaps the one that excuses the Administration's lying and obfuscation during (and since) the beginning of the Iraq war by saying, "Gee, their heart was in the right place, and besides, would you rather have Saddam still in charge?"

It's okay if you're a Republican, right?

SW

#11 Snidely Whiplash on 2006-05-31 11:06 (Reply)

Man, that is one huge assumption. You're either stone dead stupid or just have more balls than brains to make that assumption.

Here's an idea, how about viewing the movie and analyze that instead of taking one quote out of an interview and killing the messenger.

Oh.. no, you couldn't do that, that'd be.. what's the word.. smart? No.. hmm.. non-partisan? No, can't do that either. Oh well, guess it's better living in your world, eh?

#12 Tim on 2006-05-31 11:08 (Reply)

Reading comprehension is not your strong point is it?

Full quote from the interview:

--------------------------
Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

---------------------------------------------

In short:
He was asked what the proper mix between hope and fear would be to motivate people.

He responds saying that right now it's more important to focus on the "factual presentations on how dangerous it is"

Get it? You completely missed the point.

#13 Z on 2006-05-31 11:12 (Reply)

The term "over-representation" is what gets me. If you "represent facts" you simply deliver the factual information as it exists. So wouldn't "over-representation" mean going above and beyond what is there? I'm not talking about lying exactly, but more about exaggeration. Say, for instance, I knew a guy who was 7 feet tall, and I said "man that guy is tall, he's like 8 feet tall." I take it that the representation of the truth is that he's tall. The over-representation of the truth would be saying he's 8 feet instead of 7. If my analysis is right, then I think Al Gore is wrong on a personal level. However, to be honest, I generally don't like politicians, and I do think "over-representation" is a very political statement, one that promotes ambiguity. Thus allowing republicans to call him a liar, and liberals to call republicans idiots for not understanding the context. Keep in mind, I'm an independent. I don't give a crap about Gore's political background. I think both sides get a little blinded by politics on something like this.

#13.1 John on 2006-05-31 11:49 (Reply)

"overrepresenation" in this, and most, contexts means presenting something MORE than something else. It does not mean changing or exaggerating facts.

There are facts about danger and facts about solutions. Gore thinks it is important to present facts about the danger more often than the facts about solutions because only if people think there is a danger will they be open to solutions.

That is very different than *mis*representing the facts about danger.

#13.1.1 Mike Matesky on 2006-05-31 13:38 (Reply)

He's just playing fast and loose with the available facts.

Most of the time it's done by putting perfectly true facts into a certain order, so that by the end, you draw the wrong conclusion(s).

Al Gore isn't stupid, the 'facts' as they stand today won't influence anyone who isn't on the margins already.

He's aiming for "Category 5 denial". You can't do that without adding a bit of hype.

#13.1.2 Sum Guy on 2006-05-31 13:39 (Reply)

I have to go with my intellectual conscience on this one. The context of the question makes it clear that "over-representation of facts" meant that Gore highlights the worse case scenarios in order to hook people in to evaluating the argument. I think it is fair, and accurate, that he did not admit to lying.

I am not a Gore-lover by any means, I host The Hippie Killers for pete's sake, but I can't just ignore the "under-represented" interpretation of his statement. Yes, I too believe that Global Warming is an "over-represented" rationale for implimenting the progressive political agenda, but I can not ignore what is plainly obvious merely to score some gotcha points against a political figure I loathe.

I implore you, re-read the interview and leave yourself open to the possibility that you have allowed your bias to cause you to misread his statement.

#13.2 Mark Levendus (Link) on 2006-05-31 14:52 (Reply)

No, I think you missed the point. He is saying that he thinks America is in denial (i.e. not in line with the Gore-approved groupthink), and the best way, in his opinion, to bring them out of denial (be more like him, because his ideas are superior) is to exaggerate the situation. In other words, his "documentary" is an intentional lie in order to inflame popular opinion. In short, he is admitting to demagoguery. Gore is not only a liar, he is freely willing to admit to it and even sound proud of it in an interview. Way to go, Gore.

#13.3 Q_Mech on 2006-05-31 23:06 (Reply)

Reminds me of that recent TV movie about the Avian Flu in the US. Made it sound like the second it gets here the entire population of the US is gonna drop dead.

#14 RD on 2006-05-31 11:13 (Reply)