Slog - Comments on Gore on America's Lack of Reason

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Fri, 25 May 2007 11:26:21 -0800

Yeah, things were so much better back in the sixties, when we spent pretty much the same amount of time watching TV, only it was a lot worse TV, and we were stuck in a horrible war, and we bought far fewer books than we do today.

Sorry, Al's a great guy, but there's a fine line between his schtick and "cranky old guy whining about the good old days" Greatest Generation bullshit.

Comment by Tiz

Tiz — Fri, 25 May 2007 11:29:17 -0800

Gore may be cranky, but when was the last time you met a man in a bar that talked about a book he just read or was reading?

I met one this week, and it was very notable for it's rarity.

Comment by Boomer in NYC

Boomer in NYC — Fri, 25 May 2007 11:55:31 -0800

freaked out to read this as he sits in front of a computer....

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:02:48 -0800

It's been ages since I met a man, or a woman, in a bar. But I've got twelve books in various stages of progress right now. Many of them are about canals. People are not exactly lining up to talk to me about them, it's true.

Comment by Judah

Judah — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:14:20 -0800

Dude, I'll talk to you about them. I'm given to understand that it's 200 times more fuel efficient per ton/mile to ship things on canals than it is to ship by truck. Is that true? And do you see any potential applications of canal technology in the modern age that would offer a reasonable return on the high capital outlays needed to establish and maintain a system of canals?

Comment by Slip Mahoney

Slip Mahoney — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:27:56 -0800

Unless they are playing video games or staring at porn, I think a majority of people actually read and write at their computers.

No offense to your rare intellect, Tiz #2, but you misspelled "its" as "it's" at the end of your post.

Comment by matthew fisher wilder

matthew fisher wilder — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:31:11 -0800

What the hell is Gore thinking? People spend 35 hours a weekend in front of a flickering screen. That's less than half of that for a work week.

Comment by Tiz

Tiz — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:36:04 -0800

I'm embarassed. I swear, I always have to say its or it's out loud to see how to spell it, and well, I didn't.

Comment by Just Me

Just Me — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:08:15 -0800

I think Gore has a point but he just did not state it very well. As a society we tend to avoid really reading books or even websites that try to inform. He is probably fretting over the lack of thinking that is going on in the country (and lack of caring for that matter) and yeah, the red state folks DO watch a HELL of a lot of crappy TV shows.

We have become a nation that quotes talking points (from both liberals and conservative voices) and not a nation that forms unique and informed opinions for ourselves.

So with that let me just say Gore hates us for our freedom and we have to fight him over there so we do not fight him over here.

Comment by Abby

Abby — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:26:15 -0800

Ah, nostalgia. Of course, twenty years ago we all imagined the past far better...

Comment by Gomez

Gomez — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:30:48 -0800

I hope he realizes that flickering box is the only reason anyone gives a shit about him right now.

Comment by maxsolomon

maxsolomon — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:53:15 -0800

just declare already.

the dance grows tiresome.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:58:09 -0800

Judah: I don't know, that's not my area of interest. It seems unlikely, though; traditional canal boats have extraordinarily small payloads by modern standards. And regardless of the fuel costs the benefits of old-fashioned rail shipping, let alone trucks and containerization, have completely shattered whatever practical value canals once had as a shipping medium. The answer to your last question is yes and no; there are lots of very high-capacity canals in operation today that justify their cost a thousandfold; but a network of canals like the Erie Canal, or the ones that thread through England and Wales, wouldn't make any more sense today than steam locomotives would.

Comment by Victoria

Victoria — Fri, 25 May 2007 14:10:58 -0800

It's interesting, because I'm writing a paper about this- and it IS worth noting that the difference in, say, news coverage has evolved greatly over the years, particularly political journalism. Back then, you had the Fairness Doctrine to encourage and enforce the coverage of controversial issues, which was in some ways a safety line for journalists. Nowadays, with the free market news, there's very little actual political debate or investigation by reporters, and far more pundit talking heads. If there's no market for a story (like a political investigation) then it won't be told.

The real issue with that is that for a long time, dollars have been the bottom line at the big networks. As long as it's a business and not a public service, how can it act in the public's best interest?

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Fri, 25 May 2007 15:55:28 -0800

B-b-b-b-but -- news has always, always, always been a business, not a public service, in the US. Edward R. Murrow was a corporate employee. Nothing is different today; it just seems that way because you're young and the only exposure to the past you've had is through the telling of people with a vested interest in telling it a certain way.

Comment by gen x dad

gen x dad — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:08:08 -0800

Meanwhile, in FactLand, teens are buying and reading books at the highest rate in decades.

Comment by Jay

Jay — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:47:04 -0800

Yes, but what are they reading?

Comment by gen x dad

gen x dad — Fri, 25 May 2007 17:08:56 -0800

Well, for 6+ hrs a day + homework, a hell of a lot more educational reading than most adults. The fact that they are reading outside of that is fantastic, even if it's "just" fiction. Al was suggesting we don't read. It's factually inaccurate. Then again, he's baby boom-o-rama, so it's always going to be someone elses fault.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 25 May 2007 17:26:13 -0800

Gore needs to buy a Wii.

You won't be motionless, Al.

Comment by JessB

JessB — Fri, 25 May 2007 18:22:50 -0800

He's right but everyone is taking him too literally. Yes, people still read but I bet the majority do not.

Comment by chuckles

chuckles — Fri, 25 May 2007 18:58:50 -0800

Also, BUYING more books doesn't mean we're reading more. There are two things to consider 1) what are we buying (cookbooks? decorating? coffee table pretty stuff with no words that we'll never even LOOK at?) 2) there are more of us.

As to rates of reading, well I'm a librarian and I can tell you that the RATE at which people read depends heavily upon how you are judging and what your locale is. Overall, according to SELF reports of the general population, when asked "how many books do you read per week" the average adult reads LESS that than they did 20 years ago, in books.

While many of those people may read online (myself included) that reading is very different, it's often more skimming and involves a much different relationship to facts, events, and knowledge, than that held with books. Those of us who read both can certainly attest that the relationships are different, leaving "better" aside.

Teens do read more that teens 20 years ago. 30-year-olds read LESS than 30-year-old did 20 years ago. So what is the constant? It's that generation of 28-43 years olds (I'm included here and it's my job to shift these numbers), who read less than any generation before or after them.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 25 May 2007 23:57:03 -0800

Oh, and some of us still live on canals.