The review I quoted in my previous post closes with this “conclusion” that this book is “angry” and “blistering” while An Inconvenient Truth was “accessible” and somehow NOT “blistering”.  I wonder how much of An Inconvenient Truth this reviewer actually watched.  And I have to just shake my head at political analysis that treats any harsh reactions to the Bush administrations as somehow “flying off the handle”.  It seems to me that given the incompetence, hubris, and corruption of this administration in just about every area of governing,  I would think that the “reasonable-ness” of such is related to the severity of the offenses;  that “reasonable” people are rightfully driven to seek ways of sounding their own “wake-up” calls. 

Much the way that the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” showed a more accessible Al Gore — at ease with himself and passionate about the dangers of global warming — this book shows a fiery, throw-caution-to-the winds Al Gore, who, whether or not he runs for the White House again, has decided to lay it all on the line with a blistering assessment of the Bush administration and the state of public discourse in America at this “fateful juncture” in history.

Saying that Gore is somehow risking his “reasonable reputation” by unleashing a “blistering assessment of the Bush administration” seems to imply that political issues are morally neutral;  that “harsh critiques” equals “partisanship”.  This kind of thinking has made it seem impossible for mainline churches to allow anybody to talk about anything going on in this country,  so deep is the polarization and hold this political climate has on our sense of what “political discourse” should look like.  (I don’t have the answer,  but something tells me it’s not too similar to what we’ve done with this)

The Assault on Reason – Al Gore – Book – Review – New York Times