Sunday, July 04, 2010

withholding judgment on Gore

At the moment, I see little reason to turn my focus away from the creeping disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (read this WSJ article for an exploration of why efforts seem to be going so slowly), but the brewing Al Gore sex scandal may soon become a sordid distraction. For my part, I think Gore is innocent until proven guilty: the female accuser refused to cooperate with police in the initial investigation, and it's now been revealed that she has had a history of accusing men of unwanted sexual advances.

We don't want to commit the genetic fallacy, though, and thereby dismiss the possibility that she's telling the truth in this case. A form of the philosopher's principle of interpretive charity applies here: both sides need to make themselves clear before any conclusions can be drawn. For their part, the Gores appear to have closed ranks while simultaneously claiming that they welcome a reopening of the original 2006 investigation. My feeling, then, is that until a devastating piece of evidence surfaces (e.g., the supposed "genetic evidence" proves to be a positive match for Al Gore's DNA), this scandal is really a non-scandal. In the meantime, we should stay focused on the Gulf, and on other, major, national and global concerns.

Trivia: the word "prurient" comes from the Latin root meaning "itch."


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I am convinced that it is a standard leftist/liberal political strategy to distract people from the real issues with sex.

Clinton's impeachment was not about the potentially treasonous interactions with China, it was about sex with an intern.

When another issue threatened to become an embarassment, suddenly there were rumors of a possible Clinton divorce.

Now with environmentalism the issue, there is the diversion with Gore's sex life.

There are probably many more, those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head.