Charlie Rose

andyx1205  11/07/2009 03:10 AM Report

Al Gore should have been voted in as President in 2004, the world have been a much better place. I also would have voted for Al Gore over Obama if he had run, hopefully the Democrats decide to vote Al Gore in over Obama in 2012. Obama is not doing nearly enough to comat global warming, which has been expressed as a vital concern by the top scientists in the world.

Why the hell did he not run for President?

Nate  10/30/2008 03:01 AM Report

Linda Mae,

Gore didn't win the Nobel prize in Science because there isn't a Nobel prize in "Science". There are prizes in Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine. Gore is not a chemist, physicist, or doctor of medicine. He did not run any experiments, and analyze their results. Therefore, he did not do any original science. That's why his Nobel prize wasn't in any scientific discipline. What he did do was highlight some very important science done by real scientists, and examine the implications for humanity, including peace and survival.

It has nothing to do with "junk science". I am a scientist, and a good one, and there's nothing junky about "global warming".

Linda Mae  09/14/2008 03:02 AM Report

The prize was awarded by a panel of 5 greem party loving judges - NOY and I repeat NOT by scientists. He did not receive the Nobel Prize in Science. I wonder why? could it be that it was junk science?

Attila Maradi  07/21/2008 09:14 AM Report

Dear Terry M,

I think that you should go back to primary school and read about the basic concept of greenhouse gases. Perhaps you were sick when your class learnt about that topic. The basic concept is that some of the heat gets trapped by the co2 released into the atmosphere. Which is good in SMALL amount because it makes the planet liveable. But if there is too much co2 released then of course too much heat is trapped in. Human population is highly increasing and we use old fashioned and obsolete technologies and we are also cutting out our forests for productional reasons or for creating more land which can be used for agricultural activities. Now we also know that the fuels that we burn are fossils of thousands and hundreds of thousand years old vegetations which absorbed the co2 from the previous eras. The increasing population is also exhaling co2. Since we demolishing our vegetations (plus our oceans)which otherwise would absorb the increased amount of co2 this extra co2 goes into the atmosphere. Now if we wouldn´t be sure that global warming is a fact which it is. Even then it would make sense investing into renewable technologies for two reasons. Number one: they are environmental friendly. Number two there is an endless amount of energy there that could be harnessed. For this reason poor and undeveloped African countries could become exporters of solar produced electricity and so on. And what could be the consequences if we are proved to be wrong. 1, we invest a lot of money into new technologies and we become more efficient and environmental friendly. We creat new jobs and support undeveloped countries. 2. we are facing catastrophic consequences both social and economical. Attila Maradi MS student in Susutainable Development

Robert  04/24/2008 01:18 AM Report

I've been experiencing recurring problems with

your streaming video feeds. The Gore interview kept hanging on me, and wouldn't continue playing. Very frustrating. Seems that your feed is getting disrupted somehow. Please fix this technical problem. Don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I tried watching this interview on three different computers, and it kept happenning at the exact same spot on the interview. Thanks

Terry M  02/06/2008 04:56 AM Report

Good title for his new book - Assault on Reason - because he has been assaulting reason on this global warming nonsense for a long time now. Unless we stop this evil pied piper of panic we will fall into a totalitarian nanny state. And I pity you witless sheep who swallow this garbage. Do a little research and you will see that the other influences on the earth's temperature are so much more powerful than the 0.012% of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere in the last century that it is laughable to blame hurricanes, floods, droughts and ice variations on it. The models can't even match the temperature variations from the last 100 years, much less give useful predictions of the future.

Terry M. PhD

conrad  01/17/2008 08:15 PM Report

54 comments on what could be,and i say that only to include evryone,one of the serious issues ever.Its pathetic.We can talk to others and vote.We can recycle.We can also hide under our school desks if the USSR nukes us.People are going down.It's rather funny and good,because fundamentaly, people are not good.We can read and write and get edumacated,and hand out peace prizes,and it won't matter,because people of the world demand "all" kinds of stuff.The common man cant change or do anything and thats everything.Even if a few things change it's not gonna be enough.So when say,"California,all the way to Flagstaff,drops into the ocean,don't be sad,just kick back and have a bud dude.

C. Park  01/12/2008 04:45 PM Report

Obama/Gore ticket? Why should Gore serve another 4-8 years as VP? Seems, he doesn't necessarily need the office to pursue issues he is passionate about. Come to think of it though, they may be unstoppable: Obama (hopefully) the home grown authentic uniter (vs. Bush the 'masked insincere uniter') and Gore the experienced statesman and international diplomat. The biggest good thing Bush may have done in office is to make this historical possibility (a woman or mix-raced president) real.

Cookie  11/09/2007 08:19 PM Report

I just saw Al on "30 Rock" - HILARIOUS! You can see the episode at NBC.com. And Jan, your post is terrific. I bought an environmentally friendly air conditioner and though it looks like a space ship it cut my ac bill 50% while increasing the cold air flow. So sound products dont have to mean less value. The next step is redoing the plumbing in the bathroom to use less water as well. It is worth the upfront investment.

Jan Woodruff  06/19/2007 09:27 PM Report

I'm still thinking about the provocative Charlie Rose interview with Al Gore. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore got it wrong when he said nobody is doing anything about the situation in New Orleans. What he should have said is that nobody in government has done much of anything to help this city. In fact, there are lots of â??realâ?? people in New Orleans trying to advance "sustainable redevelopment." My husband and I just moved to NOLA from Portland, OR to support â??greenâ?? efforts here. Our nonprofit, Rebuilding Community International, has formed a coalition with Global Green USA and Mercy Corps to launch a â??GreenMobileâ?? Pilot Program that will assist low-income homeowners in rebuilding safer, more resource efficient, more affordable homes. The goal of our â??sustainable restorationâ?? program is to produce enduring improvement in New Orleansâ?? social, economic, and environmental conditions. The programâ??s nine measurable objectives include: (1) Reduce greenhouse gas by cutting homeownersâ?? energy consumption approximately 25%, (2) Reduce homeownersâ?? water consumption by approximately 25%, (3) Reduce by approximately 30% homeownersâ?? utility bills, which are the second-largest household expense in low-income families, (4) Provide â??green-collarâ?? and construction training for young adults, plus five other objectives. The Pilot Program will guide and inform development of an anticipated citywide, community-run â??GreenMobileâ?? program, and can be a global model for healthier, more sustainable, disaster-resistant communities. Although Mr. Gore had it wrong about the number of people here working hard for progressive change in Americaâ??s eighth-poorest large city, heâ??s spot on about the need for us to get off our complacent asses and make the world a better a better place. And, heâ??s just the person (the only person) who can repair the damage thatâ??s been done over the last eight years.

baily  06/16/2007 04:04 AM Report

mr al gore is the real unswerving persistent guy. he's been promoting the seeking for solutions for a long time,whatever resistence

MacGuffin  06/14/2007 11:38 PM Report

Al Gore was brilliant in this hour with Charlie Rose.

I predict a Gore/Obama ticket. THAT would be terrific.

bob pippin  06/06/2007 08:48 PM Report

Sir,

despite your best intentions,no matter what you-or other world leaders, formal or informal-do,unless you all first live through a long condition of hunger together with the many who do, despite globle abundance, without having your hostilites aroused at each other and the the rest of humanity, you will only harm the true value of fundemental truth and undistorted reason as well as the foundation of the cause you promote.

as to truth, at least since the first notion of cultural civilization (a good idea, if it ever gets started:MT)humanity has been led to devide into two primary groups within each of its different cultures: the leadership and the followship. this is true within every culture as well as between cultures.

leadership-which from its top to bottom, is always about 20% of any culture's population-always want-and find clever ways to get, without followship awareness-control of about 90% of the culture's resources.since the remaining 20% of a culture's resources are inadquate to satisfy the ever increasing urges of the growing followships, globel resources and portions of the followship must be forever exploited more and more. yet,leadership still see this disproportionate division as necessary to the culture's survival. but instead, it will most likely ultimately lead to humanitie's self destruction, either from humanities abuse of humanity or its abuse of globel resources.

since this first notion of building a culture is fundementally false, all efforts to sustain it necessairly rely on deception upon deception up to the point where truth can no longer be humanly believable, nor even desireable, until it is fundementally made right. and, since true right never causes unwanted harm to another, no matter what their culture, a voluntary ceasing of all culture hostilities, and an enduring meeting of all top globel leadership of all cultures must willing meet-and live as followship-in the worst culture condition on earth, while they search for the truth of why all hamanity in its various cultures can not have a common bond of doing right by all others.

anything eles, at best, will but delay the most certain results of self-desstruction.

as to reason:all human thought-including reason-ultimately arises from personal learning, either directly or indirectly.

yes, much thought comes only when a combination of existing learnings combine-on their own- to produces thought

that was never directly learnt. say like water comes from the proper combining of oxegen and hydrogen.

accordingly, all people will reason the same issue differently, unless they all rely on the same learning. of course this can never happen until all learning is based on complete truth.thus, until only truth is taught, reason will be of little help for the over all human condition.

but there is sure hope because all humans are-at birth-harmless to all others.

M James  06/03/2007 03:39 PM Report

>>Comment by Y on Sunday, May 27 at 08:14 PM

We can't educate people the way you're talking about, TS. Even if we teach reason, it'll undoubtedly bore the children to death. If you put "critical thinking" into the curriculum, you're already making a mistake. The solution (I guarantee you it's a radical idea) involves actually talking to children like everybody who isn't in school talks to each other. "Critical thinking skills" implies worksheets and assignments that the students won't even believe in, let alone learn anything from. Don't "educate" your kids. Talk to them!<<

<br>

<br>

You obviously know nothing about education. Teaching critical thinking skills has nothing to do with "worksheets and assignments." It has everything to do with creating an inquisitive environment and presenting students with concepts in a way that they can relate to them.

jay  06/03/2007 12:08 PM Report

Mr Gore, Do you believe if we embraced alternative fuels our interest/presence in the middle east would dissolve. Leaving the Muslim world no obvious reason to hate us therefore solving the gobal problem of terroism rather than fueling it (excuse the pun) by killing innocent women and children and leading the general masses into a state of paranoia.?!

Nicholas L. Pappas, Ph.D.  05/31/2007 08:19 AM Report

I am very concerned that Mr. Gore has not reduced his weight to his historical norms. He at serious risk. Lose weight Al! Please!

I applaud his emphasis on substance. Too bad Republican AND Democrat politicians are so stupid they prefer BS (pardon me, spin) over substance.

Re spin/lies - For a long time I have been concerned that Bush/Cheney/Rove want a dictatorship so that they can take over the country. However people like this always end up destroying themselves - just let them keep spinning/lying. Down the tubes they go!

Bill Wood  05/31/2007 01:15 AM Report

I like Al!!! If he runs I'll vote for him. However, I do believe he is more effective as an independent outside voice. I think Al is the finest Ex-V P this country has ever had! GREAT interview Charlie!!!!!!!!!! (much better than the one with W)

big fan this planet   05/29/2007 07:55 PM Report

And what happens if we do follow Gore and his tree hugging friends and they are wrong? We end up with a cleaner planet, no interest in the Middle east, Exxon not posting 200% profits, cheaper fuel. I don't understand your mentality, what is wrong with these people that have a personal dislike for someone who sincerly wants to make this world a better place?

Judith  05/29/2007 07:11 PM Report

Charlie cut Gore off right where he cut Amy Goodman off - what up with that? With Gore, he literally waved his arms.

Mike  05/29/2007 02:00 PM Report

I admit I am not a big Al Gore fan but as I try to observe him in as a candidate, I think he has not changed a bit....he still seems to be the 'know it it all' kid or lecturing professor who has all the answers. If he decides to run I think he needs to show a bit more humility (in my humble opinion).

Dan T  05/29/2007 03:41 AM Report

In response to Den's post below: There's plenty of information that can be found online to explain the concepts involved in climate science, how models are applied and used, what the dangers of inaction are and what the timescales are. If you're interested in reading about climate change, I'd recommend The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. It should be mentioned that Gore apparently has a follow-up book to An Inconvenient Truth coming out in a few months proposing different policies to get us on track to deal with our use of carbon, and no doubt when that book is out he'll be doing the whole book tour again and will no doubt be able to go into specifics. In any case, to your questions... You ask how they can determine whether climate models are valid. They do this by programming computer simulations of our climate and checking how those models are able to reproduce the climate conditions in real life . So for example, if you plug in variables like atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1920 and set the system to input increasing amounts of CO2 to simulate the effect of historical human carbon levels, then the system should be able to reasonably closely reproduce key features of the climate of today. Another way they test these models is by running them backwards and seeing whether the climate models starting from present day data can reproduce the climate data from, say, a few hundred years ago. But when you ask if a balanced POV ought to be presented, you demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of how science operates. Science doesn't favor the left or the right, but deals in facts and predictions based on models that agree with experimental evidence. (It *is*, in contrast, appropriate to ask for balanced perspectives when discussing policy options though.) Climate models are idealizations of the climate, meaning that they don't reproduce the effects of every air molecule but capture large-scale features that allow for prediction. There's a common misconception that climate is like weather too; this is false - weather can change wildly(it's what's called a chaotic system) but the climate is not chaotic, and so we can make predictions with sufficiently good models. There *is* some question as to how good the present models are - new data suggests that they've been conservative in their predictions for warming in the coming years. What's more, climate science has shown that it if we were to stop all carbon emmissions today, it would take upwards of 150-200 years for all of the CO2 in the atmosphere to be absorbed by the oceans, and so the Earth would still continue to warm during that period. Further, you ask about a cost/benefit analysis for action against climate change, but you have to understand that inaction is unthinkable. We don't know that we can survive if the Earth warms substantially, as there's a very real risk of mass extinctions, ecosystem collapse, crop failures, and loss of abundant fresh water, as well as potential human conflicts resulting from any of those sources of global instability. The more the planet warms, the harder it's going to be to continue with business as usual, in other words. Dunno what to say about your Mars question except to say that it's probably irrelevant(though still interesting), given that Mars doesn't have an atmosphere like ours, or oceans. Finally, if you think Gore's a hypocrite, read the article about him in Time last week and you'll find that Gore does indeed practice what he preaches. I hope these points addressed at least your scientific questions to some degree of satisfaction....

Lucille Gayle  05/29/2007 02:32 AM Report

George W. Bush stole the Presidency and the media was so silent. I could not believe it. Al Gore really got the shaft. There is a saying,"Be careful of what you want, you just might get it". This President is sitting on a great big pile of crap and he does not know how to handle it.

Carol  05/29/2007 02:03 AM Report

Den,

As reported in MediaMatters.org:

During a report on Al Gore's testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Fox News' Major Garrett reported that, in response to Sen. James Inhofe's question, "Are you ready to change the way you live?" a reference to Gore's documentary, Gore replied that "he didn't have to because he purchases a variety of environmental credits." In fact, Gore indicated in his response that he had changed his lifestyle and is continuing to do so.

Stop buying the Faux News lies.

Hobbie  05/28/2007 11:19 PM Report

I hope Al becomes President and then makes it illegal for anyone to watch Fox News. ^^

Den  05/28/2007 10:48 PM Report

Watched the program for a second time, and glad he spends his time on this issue. Granted global warming should be considered in our planning, but what is a reasonable timeline (never stated)? Shouldn't there be a "cost benefit analysis" included in the discussion? Mr. Gore was never questioned by Mr. Rose in depth about any of his views or facts he stated. Lots of generalizations, and nothing about the possibility that he could even be slightly wrong. Wouldn't that be balanced?

I'd like to know how he can predict the climate 30, 50, a 100 years from now; and what is the "scientific error rate" for this kind of prediction?

One further question, I'd like to know how he would explain that NASA scientists have released data showing that Mars over the past 30 years has warmed as much as the Earth in the same time?

ONE FINAL THOUGHT IS THAT MR. GORE DOES NOT PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACHES IN HIS OWN LIFESTYLE. WHAT KIND OF AN EXAMPLE IS THAT?

Mark MyWords  05/28/2007 09:56 PM Report

To Iggy & Jacey R., note that if you have an up-to-date PC/Web browser, you can watch the show right on this very Web page by clicking the right-hand arrow-head [>\ on the picture of Al Gore at the top of the page. I do agree that this show is an excellent choice for the producers to air during upcoming 're-broadcast' opportunities. It's an extraordinarily important topic, and many believe Mr. Gore to be a particularly valuable potential candidate in '08.

jacey ross  05/28/2007 09:00 PM Report

Please let me know when this interview with

Gore will be repeated....it must be repeated...

when?

jacey ross  05/28/2007 08:59 PM Report

Inspiring show from all aspects...guest...host...topics...answers...andI would like to know when it will repeat...must see it again, and again. Gore is more valuable as a "stateman" than a president because he can be free in a role that enhances humanity, understanding, and

participation in life and what makes it better!

Please repeat the show. Marvelous. Gore is

so poised, so intelligent, and so confident that "truth" is the only way home.

Iggy  05/28/2007 08:08 PM Report

How about repeating Al Goreâ??s interview so I can see it again. But more to the point, so that my friends who didn't see it will have a chance to see Al Gore's dynamic performance, as he discusses controversial and important issues. These issues have to be discussed by all Americans. This interview should be repeated as a service to your viewers who want to have a second look, and to those viewers who only hear second hand impressions of Al Goreâ??s ideas. Thanks Charlie for your incisive interviews, we need a talk-show like yours. As Al Gore said youâ??re an oasis in the desert of hundreds of mindless talk-shows which dumb-down its viewers instead of enlighten them. Iggy

Iggy  05/28/2007 07:38 PM Report

Hi,

How about repeating the interview entitled â??An Hour with Former Vice President Al Goreâ?? so I can see it again.

But more to the point, so that my friends who didn't see it will have a chance to see Al Gore's dynamic performance, as he discusses controversial and important issues. These issues have to be discussed by all Americans.

This interview should be repeated as a service to your viewers who want to have a second look, and to those viewers who only hear second hand impressions of Al Goreâ??s ideas.

Thanks Charlie for your incisive interviews, we need a talk-show like yours. As Al Gore said â??youâ??re an oasisâ?? in the desert of hundreds of mindless talk-shows which dumb-down its viewers instead of enlighten them.

Iggy

George B  05/28/2007 06:49 PM Report

A good program but too general!!!

There is one major issue, purposefully overlooked by most politicians, is that the democratic process has been pre-empted by the lobbying process that has infested all aspects of our government. They buy and pay for the government, write the laws, man key administrative positions, and provide a lucrative pay-off for every politician upon his ejection from office. If this cancer is not corrected, all of the rhetoric used by Al will be of no avail.

Charlie, why don't you declare a war on lobbying and educate the public to its evils?

Sheila  05/28/2007 06:36 PM Report

This show was stunning. Great questions from Charlie and articulate, well thought out replies from Al. AG DOES have a great sense of humor, but at the same time is serious as well he should be. Our country and the planet are in a mess, but he gives me hope. I was left with a lump in my throat at the progam's end. Thank you both.

Mario AP NJ  05/28/2007 04:40 PM Report

Al Gore's reference to Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" reminded me of a graduate course I took with Mr. Postman. The insights I gained from that course had more impact on my teaching than any other. How wonderful now that Al Gore has raised the issue of "media literacy" for general discussion; more importantly for the survival of our republic, he is applying it to contemporary politics.

Great interview. A keeper. Thank you, Charlie and AL.

David Stone  05/28/2007 04:03 PM Report

I focused on what was said, not how things were said. It was a good interview. The denial about certain issues, critical to the welfare of this nation and this planet, simply amaze me.

Phil Alexander  05/28/2007 03:54 PM Report

My hat's off to Al & Charlie, It was an inspirational and inlightening enterview. I agree with Al 100%. I feel we need to do more to become more invironmentally friendly and work toward getting this Global warming turned around. I'm All for having biofriendly fuels. We definitely need to look into get a more effecient way to produce a enthanol fuel to use in place of gasoline and other fuels. Will definitely be looking into ways save our environment. Thanks again. Sincerely, Phil

Jan  05/28/2007 03:33 PM Report

Mr. Gore's inspiration, passion, and love for this country and this planet in this interview left me in tears because he speaks my heart. He is correct on all points. In order for this Democracy to be saved it must begin with all of us. One candidate in one election is not going to heal the tears she has suffered, and I am so grateful for his presience and candor, and have to state that he is a great man for doing this.

One need not be president to change the course of history, and as we have seen in America, it was many like Martin Luther King Jr. and others who were the most instrumental in giving us the social and environmental changes that kept us from the abyss in years past. Al Gore is now with them, and I stand with him in working to bring about the more perfect union our founders so hoped we would have through reason.

What an American treasure this man is. And to those ho keep with the run Al run and Gore/Obama rhetoric as if this us just a game or as if he wrote this book just as a campaign ploy, please, wake up, because he is talking to you too.

tom c  05/28/2007 01:02 PM Report

how about a comment about the comments? compare the 'wingnut' con to the pro positions...who is inteligent, who is just lame? i think it shows....

Dan T  05/28/2007 10:39 AM Report

In response to what Yon said several posts down, you should note that Ken Ham's creationist museum is opening its doors imminently, complete with an exhibit showing dinosaurs living alongside Adam and Eve six thousand years ago. The president and his army of parrots say that climate change isn't something we need worry about because climate scientists aren't doing 'good science,' and *no one* questions the suggestion that science can be either good or bad? Battles have and are being fought in states like Ohio, Kansas and Pennsylvania over whether Creationism ought to be taught in science classes as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Nevermind that it's untestable, if we call it Intelligent Design then we can get away with calling it 'Science'. One school board changed its very definition of science to include Intelligent Design. Critics of evolution dismiss it as 'just a theory,' but what would that sound like if they used that tactic to dismiss the theory of gravity? Or the theory of interest? And what does it say about us that we collectively tolerate these lesions on our body politic to go untreated? This is indeed very serious. If present trends continue technology is going to change the human experience dramatically in the coming years, and it's very worrying that we have a population that is on average ignorant or, worse still, willfully so.

Science is a system of rational inquiry in which ideas that cannot be tested have no place. Evidence will either support a theory, or it will disprove that theory. Yes, biology is important. And chemistry. And ecology, and physics, and mathematics. But it's scandalous that we allow students to graduate from our schools without understanding the *philosophy of science*, out of which all of those other disciplines emerge. We've seen from history that societies that have abandoned science have become intellectually stagnant, and so it makes me sick to my stomach to learn that this administration has been, on many issues, censoring scientific agencies reporting findings that don't agree with their demented version of what reality should be...

And we don't have to try hard to think of some possible consequences of this type of attitude towards science. Just today i read an article about a village in Alaska that will have to relocate because their houses sank into the ground, which *had* been a solid permafrost. Macroscopic biological systems like the Amazon and the Redwood forests of the west are showing signs of being under strain, and we could be looking at cascading ecological systems failures if action is not taken. There's never been a more important time for scientific thought to be encouraged.

Y  05/28/2007 09:49 AM Report

We can't educate people the way you're talking about, TS. Even if we teach reason, it'll undoubtedly bore the children to death. If you put "critical thinking" into the curriculum, you're already making a mistake. The solution (I guarantee you it's a radical idea) involves actually talking to children like everybody who isn't in school talks to eachother. "Critical thinking skills" implies worksheets and assignments that the students won't even believe in, let alone learn anything from. Don't "educate" your kids. Talk to them!

Richard Rancilio  05/28/2007 04:07 AM Report

Is it not true that many media companies decended on Fla after the 2000 election to determine " who realy won ", only to find the winner was in fact the winner ?

Why do men and women like Al need to continue to fan the flames of a "stolen election", all the votes where never counted, the supreme court ruled against him giving his victory away.

A class act would move on. I guess he did with his globel warming issues. It is very good that he and others know immediatly that our energy problems are all wrong but I do not hear what to do to solve the problems.

I have read that some 1 1/2 billion people around the world do not even have electricity. I would assume the reason for this is they cannot afford it. Which in turn would lead me to believe they do not own a motor vehicle, have access to the web ( I guess he missed that while inventing the thing),or anything else which may require energy.

Unless his plan involves us living like it was 1508 not 2008, how on earth will any of these people, and the next 4 or 5 generations of them ever be able to join the modern world. If they cannot do it at todays prices, how will they do it after we see prices go up to double or tripple the current cost.

Some times the best deals we ever make are the ones we do not make. Be honest Al this is a 100 year process (this more than likely light). There are things we can do today, but stop making this sound as if you or anyone else has a plan that we can implement and solve the problem by the end next week.

Carol  05/28/2007 04:00 AM Report

Al has hit the nail on the head re: the media. The population is indeed dumbed down, relying on talking heads to tell them what to think, what to buy, and where to go on vacation. Jefferson knew that democracy could not survive without an educated and informed populace; that is why he was so hell-bent on forming institutions of higher learning. There is a serious deficit of serious, deep thought and discussion in this country, stemming from a lazy mindset that has been created by people tuning in to the tube and being trained on sound-bytes rather than on research, study and intelligent discourse. The talking heads shout at each other, using their talking points, and the audience follows suit.

I would have preferred that Al did not defer to the Supreme Court's decision as a consequence of obeying/honoring the "rule of law", inasmuch as the SCOTUS overstepped its bounds in ruling on this case in the first place. Elections are the state's business, and had it not been for the hired horde of "Brooks Brothers" rioters who descended on Florida the votes would have been counted, showing that Gore won (a fact that was later established by the media consortium that did so).

Mark MyWords  05/28/2007 12:59 AM Report

I found it interesting that Al Gore sidestepped Charlie's question: "It's 2008 - you're President - what will you do to restore the presence of 'reason' in the public conversation?"

Al gave passing mention of the dynamic the Founding Fathers spoke of - the marketplace of ideas, the diversity of opinion - that constitues the value of "the Free Press".

Clearly by severely restricting the ownership of media properties by a small number of public companies that are in other business, we could significantly help to restore the "Free Press" the Founders envisions.

Perhaps Al feels his book will sell better if he leaned on "public participation" rather than something his former colleagues in the Congress would need to aquiesce to...

Frederick  05/27/2007 08:59 PM Report

I agree with Al Gore's final words to his host: "Thank you, Charlie. You're the best."

Amanda Kirk  05/27/2007 05:36 PM Report

Charlie just has to tweak his Democratic friends, he does it with a little giggle but there it always is, he's not so besotted with Democrats as he is with those authoritative, always ready for confrontation and war, Republicans. It always shows.

Mariel Nanasi  05/27/2007 03:42 PM Report

Al has come a long way, but not far enough. He is very short on what people should do to participate. Too many generalities and not enough specifics. TV isn't the only problem. What about hyper consumerism and lack of conservation. What is the job of government, if not to regulate corporations from super exploitation (of the earth, of people)? Al blew the question regarding the Dems and their cowardly vote to pay for the war. They've been short on courage and representation and long on careerism and selfishness.

TS  05/27/2007 12:07 PM Report

Sadly, it would be wholly inaccurate for such an articulate, intelligent, & selflessly heroic man to represent the vast majority of Americans. Rather than hoping for an ad campaign to sell reason to the base motives of stupified Americans, we should work to educate our children more soundly in science and critical thinking skills. His advocacy of reason and fact versus the perniciously specious notion of journalistic "balance" addresses the most dire fissure in our democratic foundations. (Thanks to the twits posting here whose public displays of idiocy serve to showcase the need for his work.)

Pizano  05/26/2007 11:12 PM Report

AL Gore...............Please run as president of USA in 2008.........We need you so bad even though you dont think you are up to the job!

Loved ya as a VP and as a president! Thank you Mr.Rose for your wonderful interview!!!!!!!!

Terry Crane  05/26/2007 08:44 PM Report

A conversation with former Vice President Al Gore is one of Charlie Rose best shows and a wakeup calling for all of us.

Best Regards,

Terry G. Crane

Brea, CA

George Dill  05/26/2007 07:51 PM Report

You guys were too chicken to discuss the 50 ton elephant in the room. Truth is in the eye of the beholder in the good old USA and probably much of the world. The Bible is Truth, Darwin is Truth, Jesus is Truth, Hannity is Truth, Mohamed is Truth, Chaney is Truth (one really has to be a nut case to believe this last one).

The 50 ton elephant is religion. Religion is dividing us in the country and in the world. The word needs to get out as to the fiction most religions try to convey to their folks. Faith does not need Truth, Faith needs confused people looking for answers. Mitt, JC probably did not take a vacation to America while he was resting in the tomb.

Without the religious right a big bunch of Iraqi's would not be dead, a smaller bunch of Americans would not be dead, Gore would have had secret service protection on your program, and Dubya would be an executive with another Enron making more money than he is now.

Doreen Swartz  05/26/2007 07:20 PM Report

As a regular viewer of your show, Mr. Rose, I congratulate you on last night's show with Al Gore. He has proven to be a statesman that a presidential election might demean. As far as the few negatives, that I read, those comments are from people who are typical of the extreme right faction that have caused our country so much pain. Doreen