Seems like the Volokh Conspiracy is now “trolling itself”:http://www.volokh.com/posts/1148855758.shtml.
_Update_: I forgot, Adler is Juan Non-Volokh. All is explained. This “isn’t the first time”:https://crookedtimber.org/2005/11/06/libertarian-litmus-test/ he’s shown an ability to home in on sentences he doesn’t like while avoiding interpretive charity, important contextualizing information or broader political questions.
{ 15 comments }
Seth Finkelstein 05.28.06 at 8:17 pm
You missed a great opportunity :-) . You should have written something like:
“How should one interpret that posting? Is this a call for wingnut activists to flame or fabricate an untruth? Or merely an argument for rational debate over certain facts? I’d be curious what readers think.”
P O'Neill 05.28.06 at 10:00 pm
Adler seems confused by Gore’s adaptation to a world in which, for example, Jonah Goldberg is trying to create a scandal over what Gore did on a trip to France when he was 16.
John Quiggin 05.28.06 at 11:19 pm
Adler must be getting his Exxon/RNC talking points secondhand. Pat Michaels was peddling this one a couple of weeks ago.
Zeno 05.28.06 at 11:35 pm
It should be “home in”, right? “Hone” means sharpen.
Sorry, I have an ability to home in on trivial things like this. I’m not even properly licensed to do it. (I’m a math teacher, not an English teacher.)
Kieran Healy 05.28.06 at 11:35 pm
fixed. tired.
Brock 05.29.06 at 12:27 am
Language Log considers “home in” vs. “hone in.”
“Home in on” wins a Googlefight.
Barry Freed 05.29.06 at 1:28 am
Adler is Juan Non-Volokh.
Interesting. So when did he come out of the closet? And does Brian Leiter know about this?
RickD 05.29.06 at 7:35 am
Gore said:
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
Adler said:
“Is this a call for environmental activists to exaggerate or stretch the truth?”
A good answer would be “No, dumb ass.”
Aaron Swartz 05.29.06 at 9:28 am
The odd thing is how, reading the entire interview, that sentence is by far the worst. “an over-representation of factual presentations”? “a predicate for opening up the audience”? Everywhere else Gore speaks quite plainly, but unfortunately this is the one place where he slipped up.
Of course, that’s still no excuse for such dishonesty.
neil 05.29.06 at 10:26 am
Maybe it’s a unique problem I have, but when I hear someone whining about things like “the over-representation of factual presentations” I immediately wonder what their position was on the Iraq War. What about that one, Adler? Was the focus on the WMD threat simply an appropriate over-representation? And is that the same thing as it being “a big game of charades everyone understood“?
"Q" the Enchanter 05.29.06 at 10:48 am
Well, taking Adler at his word, if it had been his intention to foster an environment in which Convenient Falsehoods about figures on the left can be cultivated, he would have been hard pressed to design his question more effectively.
In any case, Adler’s making this sort of invitation a habit. Look at this recent post on the Dixie Chicks. Little more than a petri dish for septic calumnies against them. (Mon Dieu! Did you know that one of them is “married to an Arab”?!)
pdf23ds 05.29.06 at 11:41 am
Huh. I read the quote from Al Gore and read him the same as Alder did, until I got to the first comment, which showed me how I was mistaken. I think an honest man could have written that post.
Tim Lambert 05.29.06 at 12:57 pm
Adler worked for the CEI (the CO2 = life people) for eight years. He’s a professional.
LowLife 05.30.06 at 6:32 am
If you are selecting an existing sentence with a given quality (in above example, one that Adler doesn’t like) one would home in on it. But if one is devising sentances, improving each subsequent, towards a more perfect meaning than one could be seen as honing in on the best expression. No reason to use popular expression if you can devise one that does a better job.
lemuel pitkin 05.30.06 at 9:33 am
What’s interesting is how sensible the comments are — of the first few dozen, all but one or two obvious trolls make the straightforward defense of Gore.
Just another version of the age-old question, I guess: why do so many smart people read Volokh?
Comments on this entry are closed.