Talk:Al Gore

Vietnam section is repetitive and weighty. Why no criticisms section?

The Vietnam section says the same thing over and over about Gore not wanting someone else to go to Vietnam in his place. Additionally, most of the section gives NPOV#Undue_weight to the decisions made by Gore to go; it reads like whoever wrote it wanted you to empathize with him -- not very encyclopedia like. Could someone please clean this up?

Also, why no criticisms section? - Gunnanmon (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It has the same number of criticism sections as George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or even Dick Cheney. That seems fair enough. In general, explicit criticism sections are discouraged, as they attract fluff and make it hard to properly contextualize criticism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft Lottery Number

If you follow the link regarding draft lottery number, you will discover that the first draft lottery was held on December 1, 1669 which is after Al Gore enlisted. At the time of his enlistment, individual draft boards selected men to be drafted based on their age, oldest first. So as a recent college graduate, Gore would have been slated for selection earlier than most of the other men yet to be drafted, typically those without student deferments upon their graduation from high school. The loss of his college student deferment would indeed have put him at the front of the line for selection, so graduation brought with it a need to make an immediate choice. The options available included enlistment, National Guard or Reserve duty, flight to Canada, medical deferment (4-F), enrollment in Divinity School etc. Gore chose enlistment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.110.120 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a Rah-Rah piece

This article is a cheerleader piece for Al Gore that could benefit by some objective editing. The whole piece looks like it was written up by Gore's PR staff.

Statements such as "Some have cited" are given without detail, then the undetailed accusations are refuted by statements such as "Gore has denied" without any details as well, as though Gore's denial is proof enough that the accusations are baseless.

Example:

Gore's involvement in environmental issues has also been the subject of criticism. Some have cited "conflict of interest," labeling him a "carbon billionaire." [189] Gore has denied that he is a "carbon billionaire." [190] Others have questioned the validity of his data, such as the High Court of Justice which argued that there were "nine significant errors" in the film, An Inconvenient Truth.[191] Gore responded by suggesting that the ruling was in his favor.[192]

I'm not even sure what the last sentence in that example (taken from the Wiki page) is supposed to imply. Is it denial? Counterpoint? Is it even accurate?

The entire article is laden with praise and positive points from top to bottom, with no acknowledgment of the potential for legitimate criticisms.

Example:

"...some have criticized Gore for his personal use of electricity, stating that he has large electricity bills.[193][194] Gore's spokesperson responded by stating that the Gores use renewable energy which is more expensive than regular energy."

First of all, again, I was under the impression that it was discouraged in Wikipedia entries to use such identifiers such as "Some have" as opposed to actually naming who "Some" refers to specifically. But the main point of this quoted text is to say an objective text should not only say that "some" criticize his personal use of electricity and then defend it, but should also acknowledge that it is excessive to own three homes, one of which is over 10,000 square feet, while gathering accolades as a proponent for the individual sacrifices that must be made in the name of fighting global warming and the coming doom he has predicted. Renewable energy or not, environmentally retrofitted or not, a 10,000 square foot house and two additional homes consume much more energy than the needs of the average American citizen he is calling upon to take up the fight against global warming.

Bottom line: This article is a spin piece.

My suggestion is to remove the criticisms and praise altogether and just leave the actual facts minus the interpretations (opinions) of praise or critique. Don't include undetailed criticisms and it's not necessary to provide undetailed counterpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.104.150 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

=================================================================================================

I agree. In an effort to bring relevant facts to this article, I have edited the Vice Presidential section to describe the $100's of millions in US federal budget cuts made by Clinton & Gore, reducing environmental enforcement and reducing environmental cleanups. For example, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) site had some of the worst radioactivity and High Explosives contamination in the USA from WW2 and the Cold War. Clinton and Gore cut LANL's Environmental Restoration (ER) Program's budget from it's high of $100 under the first Bush Administration, cut down to a level ($27 million)that supported only govt employee salaries, leaving no money for clean-ups & sampling of contaminated sites across LANL. Clinton-Gore cut federal environmental clean-up spending across the US, as evidenced by the dramatic reduction in sampling at contaminated DOD & DOE sites, causing 2/3 of the US environmental lab community to go out of business between 1993-1998, due to the dramatic drop in federal environmental clean-ups. I was an official at a large environmental lab that did work at all but 2 of the major US DOE sites, and the local and regional DOE officials and scientists were muzzled by their Washington management at the time. While I was working on a multi-million $ drinking water clean-up project in Kiev, Ukraine, Oct 1993, Al Gore personally negotiated visited Kiev and negotiated a deal eliminating the funding local USAID environmental projects, to pay for an agreement for the US to pay $60 million in Ukraine's previous year's unpaid fuel bills in return for "privatization" efforts by Kuchma & the Ukrainian Govt. Our USAID office manager made it very clear that Mr. Gore had to immediately take all of our Ukrainian environmental funding and other Newly Independent State's environmental project's funding to pay for his agreement with Kuchma. For the person who keeps deleting this information, look up the LANL ER budget from 1990 - 2000 and you can read the results for yourself. I currently do not have access to Govt. records, but a simple review of DOE and DOD environmental spending budgets during the Clinton Gore administration will prove the veracity of the facts that Clinton-Gore slashed federal spending on environmental clean-ups at contaminated DOD & DOE sites in an effort to reduce the deficits and balance the budget.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. Please provide reliable sources for additions you make. Vsmith (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

==============================================================================================================

NY Times December 20, 1994 reported "...senior Clinton Administration officials explained the broad details of proposed budget cuts in energy, transportation and housing programs, ... Of the $10.6 billion the Energy Department has proposed to cut, $4.4 billion is in its environmental budget. " http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/20/us/president-s-suggested-reductions-face-many-obstacles.html?scp=2&sq=+President+Clinton++%244.4+billion+environmental&st=nyt

Does a $4.4 billion dollar planned cut by Clinton Gore, a cut in DOE environmental spending merit mention? I currently am outside the United States and do not have access to Federal Govt. Budget and Los Alamos official records, but I was working there during that period, and the Environmental Restoration budget at LANL was definitely cut from $100 million under the first Bush president, and LANL's environmental clean-ups ground to a halt under Clinton-Gore. A lack of sources does not change the facts. Gore's secret deal with Kuchma that cut US environmental spending in Eastern Europe will be more difficult to document, but no less true. Our company had $1 million and $5 million dollars cut from promised contractual funding on projects that I personally managed.189.148.112.120 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Another description of Gore-Clinton's ongoing plans slashing environmental clean-up funding: Jan 21, 1996 "Deep in the fine print of President Clinton's seven-year balanced-budget plan is a little zinger that might surprise supporters impressed by his vow to protect education and environmental programs. In the seventh year, Clinton proposes even deeper cuts in domestic programs than Republicans are proposing in their balanced-budget plan. By that time, he would be out of office, even if he were elected to a second term. The $110 billion in cuts in programs subject to annual spending bills, such as education, environment and defense, is the critical element that tips Clinton's plan into balance in 2002. " http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960121&slug=2309836

It is clear the Clinton-Gore had motive, intent, ability, and authority to cut environmental clean-up spending. Still looking for the written proof with only crummy internet access. Anyone out there interested in something more factual than the current politically-correct but less-than-factual portrayal of Gore's record on environmental spending? I've pointed to the places where Gore actually cut clean-up budgets - who wants to dig (since I have no good shovel)? The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

He is super CEREAL!

Recent edit

Sorry about that, I was doing a little sandbox test and accidentally saved. --Simfan34 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Separation

I'm very sceptical to having this as a separate section. First of all because it's bound to remain a very short section, and makes for bad layout. Secondly because it's out of place, squeezed in between potential presidential runs and environmental activism. I think it would be better to simply add it after the marriage info in the bio. Lampman (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded.

John 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is too small for a full section but fine for a subhead. I tweaked the headers a bit to make it work. The article is arranged chronologically so it makes sense where it is but if you can think of a better way to convey the information, then go ahead and tweak some more. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading a lot of biographies and seeing Al Gore's page, why doesn't he have a Family and personal life section? Obama has one, Bush has a Marriage and family section, Cheney has a Personal life section and Reagan has a Marriages and children section. If Gore had such a section, this could be wrapped in.--NortyNort (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Great idea - I think it was never made because there really wasn't a need for it. Go ahead and make the section. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I moved sentences and made a new section without disturbing the flow of the article and purpose of other sections.--NortyNort (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court

Why does the mention of the Supreme Court up top only cite the 5-4 decision? There was a 7-2 decision finding fault with the Florida Supremes and a 5-4 decision on the remedy; the article clearly omits the readily-available additional info, and suggests that the Supremes decided the election when all the recounts gave the (ultimately way too close for definitive resolution) Florida vote to the Smirker. Why would it do that? Oh yeah, I forgot, everybody gets NPOV, but some get it more equally than others. This site is an elaborate fraud, sadly.