On 16 Oct, 03:13, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

You were doing OK with the rich greenwashing themselves but you'll
lose every engineer on the planet trying to discuss violations of the
First Law of Thermodynamics.

Bret Cahill

Indians (those whose parents learnt all ropes) are ready to talk
about everything but what ails Indian Society.

I had to approach thousands of "educated" Indians to support an online
petition(www.dmjoshi.org) I have launched over 4 months back. Less
than one percent thought it worth anything. Some even became abusive,
and they were techers or students at IITs and like.

There seems to be this negative
attitude about the guy

Hardly surprising considering Gore's all consuming hatred of the ever
popular Clintons. A _Washington Post_ or some other columnist got it
half way right in 2000 comparing Gore to the Italian composer who was
jealous of Mozart. I say "halfway" because while Bill Clinton could
be a credible political Mozart, the Italian composer wasn't exactly
tone deaf.

The Democratic Party is big tent but the big tent shouldn't include
haters. Gore's irrational hatred of Clinton alone should have
precluded him from being in the party in any official capacity, let
alone being nominated as a presidential candidate.

Nominating a misanthrope in 2000 as a presidential candidate was the
dumbest mistake the Democratic Party has made in its two century
history. Even Tipper could have gotten into the White House and have
speeded up the time line for the first woman president by 8 years.

Campaigns and elections have consequences. With their concession
speeches Gore and Kerry are both joined at the hip with the worst
president in the history of the republic and no amount of greenwashing
can mask this glaring fact in the minds of either future historians or
'08 voters.

If the dunce in the White House has an approval rating of 25% --
mostly fundies and the politically incurious shunned by all Hollywood
types except maybe Mel Gibson -- what does this say about candidates
who couldn't beat him by at least double digits?

Gore and Kerry were too dumb to get their lofty message out with 100
million dollars and unlimited access to the media for a year?

To dumb to call the bottom fishing scams of the GOP?

To dumb to wrangle the public debate from media hyping social issues
and back to economic issues?

that isn't particularly rational.

Is it particularly rational to claim you should be president by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message out?

Is it particularly rational to campaign against the unparalleled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest economic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budget
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers numbers that
discredited GOP "market" economists?

Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spend $100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never _once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip out of his
mouth?

It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The Supreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.

Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal on your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rating soared
during the scandal?

Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private matters like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a running mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?

Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20 megawatt hour/
month electric consumption?

Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of the Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nominating a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.

Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that it was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned against peace
and prosperity and he won.

Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was misleading
too.

Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years of peace
and prosperity.

Just to have a little positive note on a dreary situation---some of
the tech that should come out of this will make a difference in low-
standard-of-living high-birthrate places. Put a wind/solar generator
in an African village (Bill Gates, are you listening?) and lots of
things are possible. But they will have to come down in price, which
will only happen through first-world market forces.

Just to add a realistic note I was explaining to a politically as well
as technically astute acquaintence now residing in the midwest about
the dire situation in S. California with the one two punch of peak oil
and global warming drying up the Colorado River. I said S. Cal.
relies on two liquids more than any other place, water and petroleum
"and both are disappearing or getting expensive really fast."

I then quoted a marine biologist at Scripps in La Jolla who predicted
in as little as 15 years, they'll draw down Lake Mead below the
turbine inlets and S. Cal. wouldn't have any electricity or water . .

The acquaintence just gloated, "we have coal, we have water . . ."

From that remark was obvious he had already skipped plan A, saving the

polar bears, and gone directly to Plan B, saving humans (including his
own fanny).

I'm a little more hopeful ("breakthroughs are guaranteed") but he's
right that all the greenwashing by the rich wouldn't amount to a hill
of beans as far as future reality is concerned.

When gas is $10/gallon toward the end of Hillary's second term Gore's
polar bears and the Branson's Prize will seem like sick jokes.

Let's hope that Hillary does more than $50 billion for sustainable
energy. We need at least $100 billion/year -- what Cheney is now
spending on his Iraqi oil quagmire.

The Nobel Prize needs to go to someone with _solutions_. Not only
does Gore have no solutions, political or technical, Gore is precluded
from ever having any solutions because Gore abhors ideas.

Even more, the Nobel Prize also needs to go to someone who isn't
consumed by hate.

Bret Cahill