May 24, 2006

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

Al Gore and his movie clarifying the reality and scope of the threat of global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth" is getting a lot of buzz lately.

The list of theatres and opening dates shows that if you want to see it, you'll have to make a road trip.

The nearest theatres to the Quad Cities showing the film are Des Moines, Ames, Chicago, and Champaign.

The site says that theatres are still being added, so maybe a local theatre might find a screen for it.

10 Comments:

At 5/24/2006 9:08 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

The only "inconvenient truth" I see here is that the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in '97, giving Gore and the Clinton Administration 3 years to present it to the Senate for ratification.

Given Gore's position in the Senate at that time, and his passion for environmental issues, the real "inconvenient truth" is that Gore didn't seize this opportunity of a lifetime and push Kyoto through the Senate, when he actually had the power to DO something about global warming, and not just make movies about it.

 
At 5/24/2006 11:42 PM, Blogger tiz said...

You conveniently omit that the Democrats lost any and all control of the Senate after 1996. During the three year period you speak of Trent Lott and the rest of the Senate was more worried about cigars and interns than the environment.

Regarding the actual movie, I bet the Bijou in Iowa City will end up carrying it.

 
At 5/25/2006 10:19 AM, Anonymous paladin said...

If I remember correctly, a sense of the Senate vote in '98 sent Kyoto down in flames, 98-0, which is about as bipartisan as you can get. Which means tiz, that the "inconvenient truth" for you is that you can't play the Blame The Republicans Game on this one. 'Tiz a pity. har har

But still, I'd love to hear from Gore why in his 8 years in power, he didn't use his political capital to do more to promote Kyoto, or at least devise some homegrown hybrid of it, considering his passion for the subject. I guess it's just easier to stand on the sidelines and indulge in hand-wringing and scaremongering.

 
At 5/25/2006 1:11 PM, Blogger highxlr8r said...

Clinton-Gore did not give the treaty to the Senate for ratification in an effort to include devolping nations into the process. The treaty itself would not have the same significance if it was not agreed upon by developing nations responsible for high levels of emissions.

For a fuller story, see: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/

Plus, as another commenter mentioned, the treaty would have stalled in the Republican controlled Senate. It would have been disadvantageous to submit the treaty only to have it rejected. It makes more sense to hold off until the "climate" in the Congress was "warmer" to its acceptance. (Sorry, I could not resist.)

 
At 5/25/2006 3:02 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

Sorry hi, but 98-0 isn't
"Republican controlled" Senate, it's "bipartisan" Senate.


Don't you guys ever get bored playing the "Blame The Republicans Game"? I guess not, otherwise, you'd be thinking about how you lost Congress after 40 years, and what you could do to get it back. But it's so much easier telling pleasing stories about your heroes, clinton-Gore, and blaming Republicans, rather than doing the hard work of regaining the public's confidence.

But even so, why didn't the passionate environmentalist Vice-President Gore, devise something homegrown to address global warming? Did he just Blame Republicans (tm) too? Looks like your hero Gore took the easy way out, and is now just scoring cheap partisan points. Way to go, Al! But no matter---your fans will adore you even if you're a hypocrite (do what I say, not what I do).

 
At 5/25/2006 4:22 PM, Blogger highxlr8r said...

Paladin,

That vote did not "send Kyoto down in flames." The resolution merely required that only a treaty which provided for emission mandates for Devloping Countries along with mandates for so-called "Annex-I Parties" (i.e. the U.S. and other developed nations)

What the resolution sought to identify was that the Senate required parity between developed and developing nations, which is what Clinton-Gore were looking for in the first place.

The resolution also suggested that the treaty should not be ratified if it would "result in serious harm to the economy of the United States," which is the Bush Administration's current excuse for not submitting it to the Senate.

The text of the resolution paladin refers to can be found by going to Thomas and looking for S.RES.98.ATS

 
At 5/25/2006 10:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why doesn't Bush get out of Iraq? He is the worst President this country has ever seen. Paladine and the rest of the "Republican right" are about to get a rude awakening. We are sick and tired of Bush's "oil for soldiers" policy.

Paladin, you, Zinga, Beals and the rest are nothing but captives of corporations. Next you will be joining up with the D/A to stamp out progress!

 
At 5/26/2006 8:33 AM, Blogger highxlr8r said...

By using the phrase "Republican controlled" I am not trying to "blame Republicans." I am merely stating a political fact. Although the current makeup is in fact bi-partisan in the sense that Republicans generally cannot overcome potential Democratic philibusters, it is not bi-partisan in setting the agenda for debate. Republicans do control that much.

Likewise, during the Reagan years, he was unable to pass certain legislation because the House and Senate were Democrat-controlled. Again, despite how you want to spin it, I'm not playing a blame game, only stating realities.

Also, I'm the first to agree that Gore (and Clinton) should have been stronger in pushing for stricter emissions standards, and he should be rightly criticized for it by those that support the position. But it is not hypocritical to still think that Gore was a better alternative than Bush, and to still admire him. It would be absurd to abandon Gore for Bush because Gore "didn't work hard enough on the environment."

 
At 5/26/2006 1:43 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

hi, let me repeat: a vote of 98-0, in the Senate, even in '98, is bipartisan, and has nothing to do with which party had the majority at that time. There were not 98 Republicans in the Senate in 1998.

And thanks for agreeing (at least, I think you agree!) that as passionate as Gore was about environmental issues, he could have done more when he was VP. That was my main point---Gore didn't do enough during the 8 years he actually had the power to affect change in our debate and policies about global warming.

 
At 5/29/2006 9:04 PM, Blogger highxlr8r said...

I agree that every President in my lifetime could have done more to protect the environment. :-) My response was to your suggestion that I should not have supported Gore because of a failur to do enough on that issue. I thought your logic there was unreasonable.

Also, 98-0 is obviously a bi-partisan vote. I misread that first sentence of your 15:02 post. I thought you were referring to the Senate in general at that time. I know that some people like to argue that because it really requires 60 votes to get anything passed, that republican or democratic "control" cannot seriously be used until one party has 60 seats. That is the opinion I was arguing against. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home