He's nominated for a Nobel Prize.

A comparison of the energy efficiency of Al Gore's house to Bush's ranch, and a a defense of Gore's house.

I'm not suprised that Gore uses CFL bulbs. At least he can afford the $2,000 mercury cleanup charge when one of those things breaks.

$2000 cleanup is an Urban Legend.

It doesn't require a $2,000 cleanup. Some woman freaked out and called a haz-mat cleanup company who, of course, told her that she needed a big $2,000 clean-up job. It's much like how some unscrupulous auto mechanics will tell you that you need costly repairs to your car when you really just need a fuse replaced or some new spark plugs. Long story short Faux News got a hold of the story and ran with it.

Here's a blog, which cites a Harvard Professor, about what the truth is

I don't have time right now to double-check the $2000 cleanup, but I could see how that might be an urban legend. That doesn't change the fact, however, that CFL bulbs have been grossely overhyped. Even if the mercury doesn't require a haz-mat team, it still cannot be disposed of in a trash can like the traditional incandesant bulbs. I've heard that these have to be taken to mercury disposal centers. Will e-waste dropoff sites take them?

Will e-waste dropoff sites take them?

I believe so. In L.A., they have a household hazmat dropoff about once a month.

Has anybody seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

If so, what do you think?

Not any new info there. Bush/Regan supported Iraq back in the 80s when he was supporting terrorism, using WMDs (that the USA gave him) and trying to exert his force over Iran. He attacked Kuwait because he figured Bush would let it happen, as Regan/Bush had done everything to keep him from being sanctioned by the international community. Gulf War I proved that wrong, but at a high price, so Gore had a pretty good point in 92 about how Perhaps the people who were cozying up to Saddam until a war happened might not be the right people to continue leading us in the new world.

Well sure enough turns out he was right. That same party who supported Saddam, spent 8 years criticizing for any internationally backed actions against Saddam and accusing Clinton of being too obsessed with finding Bin Laden. Than after Bin Laden hits us they act like the one's who would have protected us better AND THAN when they can't find Bin Laden they decide to attack Iraq after 10 years of international sanctions have made him into a toothless tiger. And they execute that war so well the whole thing turns into a civil war, because they leapfrogged into Baghdad, passing over militants & radicals, giving them time to hide and dig in and wait to bomb us.

Here's my response:

Bush/Regan supported Iraq back in the 80s when he was supporting terrorism, using WMDs (that the USA gave him) and trying to exert his force over Iran. - "The enemy of my enemy..." At the time, Saddam was less of a threat than Iran and other, very conservative Muslim groups. In fact, I skimmed his Wikipedia page and found nothing but praise for his social programs and womens' rights policies. Compared to the more radical Muslim governments in the Middle East and the communist territory beyond that, Hussein must have seemed like a shining light of democracy in that part of the world. Also, this would not be the first time the U.S. has sought help from a potentially unfriendly state. In WWII, the USA and USSR worked together against Nazi Germany, only to have the iron curtain go up soon after.

Gulf War I proved that wrong, but at a high price - To my knowledge, the Gulf War was one of the most well-planned and executed military operations in history. Are you talking about a high price in manpower or equipment? If so, what was that price?

Perhaps the people who were cozying up to Saddam until a war happened might not be the right people to continue leading us in the new world. - The war happened. If Bush was really "cozying up" to Saddam, his response would have been little more than a written condemnation, and not a military invasion. (By the way, didn't Gore leave out any mention of the Gulf War in that little speech of his?)

That same party who supported Saddam, spent 8 years criticizing for any internationally backed actions against Saddam and accusing Clinton of being too obsessed with finding Bin Laden. - When did the Republicans accuse Clinton of being obsessed with finding Bin Laden? Can you provide an article that references this?

they decide to attack Iraq after 10 years of international sanctions have made him into a toothless tiger. - Sanctions did not destroy Hussein's WMDs. Gore said it himself in that video: Saddam was acquiring nuclear materials. Where did they go? (actually, one of Hussein's generals has written a book in which he states that the weapons were sent to Russia in hollowed-out passenger planes to avoid suspicion).

the whole thing turns into a civil war - If you'll notice, there are far fewer stories in the news talking about incidents of sectarian violence. Were mistakes made in the Iraq war? Possibly. Has any war in history ever been fought perfectly? Absolutely not. The military wasn't expecting a military insurgency on a scale never seen before.

Gulf War I proved that wrong, but at a high price - To my knowledge, the Gulf War was one of the most well-planned and executed military operations in history. Are you talking about a high price in manpower or equipment? If so, what was that price?

It was a well executed war but with around 200 coalition casualties, unknown casualties on Iraq's side, and 183,000 US soldiers currently suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. I'd call that a high price, epically if it could have been avoided by actions in the 1980s that could have prevented it. NOTE I said "COULD HAVE", NOT "WOULD HAVE", as we'll never know for sure.

(By the way, didn't Gore leave out any mention of the Gulf War in that little speech of his?)

Watch the first 11 seconds of the video: "The conduct of the War will remain a proud memory for all Americans. But the full history must also incude the events before and after the war."

BTW Gore was one of the few dems in 90 who did vote for that War.


That same party who supported Saddam, spent 8 years criticizing for any internationally backed actions against Saddam and accusing Clinton of being too obsessed with finding Bin Laden

http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20060924/bill_clinton_takes_on_faux_news_part_1

they decide to attack Iraq after 10 years of international sanctions have made him into a toothless tiger. - Sanctions did not destroy Hussein's WMDs. Gore said it himself in that video: Saddam was acquiring nuclear materials. Where did they go?

they decide to attack Iraq after 10 years of international sanctions have made him into a toothless tiger.

That speech was 1992, and Gore was talking about events that happened in 1985, 1987 & 1988. Before the war. After the 91 war most of his stuff was destroyed and I'd say the sanctions were pretty useful as they kept him from rebuilding the stuff that Regan/Bush had given them.

The war happened. If Bush was really "cozying up" to Saddam, his response would have been little more than a written condemnation, and not a military invasion

Go to 7:40 in the video. His point was that they had been all through the 1980s and that's why Saddam figured he'd have no problems from Bush after the invasion in 1990.

America should have had HIM instead of Shrub. I once read that his father, Tennessee senator Al Gore Senior, was considered by JFK's Boston Mafia as a possible running mate for Kennedy in 1960, had LBJ turned them down.