Political Hypocrisy at it's Finest

[taks]

really now, that was almost silly. do you really think a liberal think tank would expose such hypocrisy on a liberal politician?

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Come on guys. How is he supposed to get the message across to anyone that matters without hosting dinners, walking the walk etc. It's nonsense to suggest politicians always have to obey the same restrictions they place on the people. I doubt there's ANY men of his station running a pure green ticket.

[Cantousent]

That's okay, Walsh. I'm sure the ends justify the means.

[Sand]

Al Gore isn't a politician any more. He holds no office nor seeking any political office. He is just another business man with celebrity status. That's all.

[taks]

that he's not serving in an elected position no less diminishes his role as a politician. he's pushing political agendas, and attempting to influence political policy. plus, i don't think either one of us can truly say he's not bucking for some sort of political appointment should a democract get elected for the next term. think a little before posting, sand.

 

taks

[taks]

Come on guys. How is he supposed to get the message across to anyone that matters without hosting dinners, walking the walk etc. It's nonsense to suggest politicians always have to obey the same restrictions they place on the people. I doubt there's ANY men of his station running a pure green ticket.

personally, i didn't say he had to. actually, i said there's no problem with it. that doesn't lessen the hypocrisy. his defense, btw, is based on things that only the wealthy can afford. he just added a layer to the hypocrisy with that.

 

taks

[LadyCrimson]

I don't like hypocrisy, but imo one can take the hypocrisy bludgeoning stick a little too far sometimes. I've yet to meet anyone who couldn't be called a hypocrite in some area/fashion or another - including myself.

[Sand]

that he's not serving in an elected position no less diminishes his role as a politician. he's pushing political agendas, and attempting to influence political policy. plus, i don't think either one of us can truly say he's not bucking for some sort of political appointment should a democract get elected for the next term. think a little before posting, sand.

 

taks

 

He is no more political nowadays than Bill Gates. A lot of celebrities push political agendas and not politicians, from Jane Fonda to Sean Penn.

[Cantousent]

I don't like hypocrisy, but imo one can take the hypocrisy bludgeoning stick a little too far sometimes. I've yet to meet anyone who couldn't be called a hypocrite in some area/fashion or another - including myself.

 

This is undoubtedly true. In fact, I don't think we should hold it against Gore that he consumes a lot of energy. He's a celebrity with a certain status in society. However, whether it should or not, hypocrisy does detract from the message. There's no getting around that fact. That's because, no matter how much we try to be objective, the message will be associated with the person. If this were a tv evengelist who said that we should be kind to our neighbors and charitable to the poor, do you honestly think we wouldn't have every anti-religious member making the charge of base hypocrisy. Now that it's a liberal, we should stop concentrating on the person and start concentrating on his message? It hasn't worked for Christians yet. ...But, in fact, I don't disagree with Gore's message of conservation. No matter where you stand on the issue of global warming, conservation is good. It has proved to be insufficient, by itself, to curtain our consumption of oil. We cannot conserve our way out of the problem.

 

Anyhow, back to hypocrisy, I've often said, even on these boards, that the charge of hypocrisy is thrown out too quickly. ...And it undoubtedly is here as well. However, when folks on these boards make the charge of Christian hypocrisy, level against an entire group of people no less, I didn't see you, LadyCrimson, jumping up to the defense of Christians because all humans are hypocrits at one time or another. It would be my pleasure for you to cite the example that proves me wrong. In the meantime, Al Gore is a specific individual. His hypocrisy comes because he has placed himself on display and has a very public message. This isn't some gross generalization. We have the man. We have his actions.

 

You were right. You're a hypocrit just like the rest of us.

 

Meanwhile, I would have to say that Al Gore deserves the ridicule he's getting right now. On the other hand, he deserves to live past this incident because we all deserve a chance to live past the incidents in our lives. So, the guy preaches conservation while consuming a small countries worth every day (or whatever). Haha. Great joke. Funny. Look at poor Al Gore with egg on his face. Now let's move on with our lives. He'll keep preaching conservation. He'll also keep sounding a little bit fringe while he does so. He'll keep consuming. Conservatives will jump at the chance to attack a perceived threat. It was ever thus.

[Tale]

He does use a lot of energy, but that energy is all green energy. He's even paying significantly more than he would be if it weren't green. Where is the hypocrisy in that? How does that make him deserve ridicule?

 

Of course "[Nashville Electric Service] company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information." http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1594368,00.html

So, where are they getting the info?

Edited February 28, 2007 by Tale

[Cantousent]

In asmuchas he preaches green energy, I'll agree with you. Inasmuchas he preaches conservation, that kind of gross consumption is bad. I mean, if he's got that much green energy, which is so much better for the environment, he could use it to bolster the community. I sure as hell wouldn't. Anyhow, he's a public figure. These sorts of things happen. Hell, I think this will help his image. Instead of being the guy shrieking about other folks, he's the victim who's being attacked by the evil right. It certainly makes him more sympathetic.

[Cantousent]

Of course "[Nashville Electric Service] company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information." http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1594368,00.html

So, where are they getting the info?

"Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.

 

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year."

 

And that energy, by the way, is not green energy. He uses normal energy and "invests" in green power sources. Listen, I'm not even attacking the guy on his energy consumption as such. I don't really care. I just think that this is the exact sort of thing that draws fire. It has drawn fire. That's the way it is. So his consumption, according to that most conservative of think tanks, the Associated Press, is only several times more than the average household as opposed to severl times and then a couple more.

[taks]

He is no more political nowadays than Bill Gates. A lot of celebrities push political agendas and not politicians, from Jane Fonda to Sean Penn.

most celebrities aren't lifelong politicians like al gore, i.e. they have other jobs other than politicking. al's a politician.

 

taks

[taks]

He's a celebrity with a certain status in society. However, whether it should or not, hypocrisy does detract from the message. There's no getting around that fact. That's because, no matter how much we try to be objective, the message will be associated with the person.

exactly. plus, it is impossible to strip motive from message as a casual observer.

 

taks

[Tale]

Of course "[Nashville Electric Service] company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information." http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1594368,00.html

So, where are they getting the info?

"Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.

 

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year."

 

And that energy, by the way, is not green energy. He uses normal energy and "invests" in green power sources. Listen, I'm not even attacking the guy on his energy consumption as such. I don't really care. I just think that this is the exact sort of thing that draws fire. It has drawn fire. That's the way it is. So his consumption, according to that most conservative of think tanks, the Associated Press, is only several times more than the average household as opposed to severl times and then a couple more.

The thing is they were never given the utility records. So, how did they get it?

 

And yes, it is green energy. Nashville Electric Service offers a green energy substitution program where you can buy it in set blocks for a premium. I haven't done the math myself, but according to others, the cited killowatt hours and expenses correspond properly to paying this addition premium.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Tale

[Guard Dog]

I know Mr. Gore... somewhat. I had the chance to meet him twice when I was involved in politics. This man is no crusader. He does not care about saving the planet, or the environment. To him, environmentalism is simply the vehicle he has chosen to advance himself. As with many politicians he is a study of narcissism gone wild.

 

In 1991 he was the junior senator from Tennessee, bucking for a 1992 Presidential run. He involved himself in a protest/court battle involving the Georgia Pacific Co. timber operations near Covington TN. A number of environmental groups filed for a court injunction to stop timbering PRIVATELY OWNED land they had leased timber rights to. The cause was based on a report of some endangered bird that made it's habitat in that area. While the court battle went on Mr. Gore got his picture on the front page of the Memphis Commercial Appeal standing arm in arm with the protesters blocking the access road to the land. Eventually Ga. Pacific stopped fighting and pulled out of the area. The enviro groups claimed victory and most of the people in Covington TN lost their jobs. At least if Mr. Gore was a true believer then those who lost their jobs would have been the tragic side effect of "doing the right thing". But all he cared about was the publicity it generated for him which makes him a despicable cold blooded S.O.B in my book. The sad thing was the Tennessee Fish and Game commission maintained that species of bird no longer inhabited the east side of the Mississippi River. But as a few of you pointed out here, facts mean little compared to the perceived importance of the message. This incident played out after he became VP but I'm convinced it had a lot to do with why he lost in Tennessee in 2000. No one likes to be used.

 

Lady Crimson is right, open any newspaper and you can find dozens of examples of hypocrisy. But seldom does a total fraud like Gore get embarrassed like this. And Sand it does matter. Even if he is not in politics at this moment he has become the de facto leader of the "New Left". And trust me, we have not heard the last of him in national politics. And any opportunity to discredit him should be capitalized on. Have you guys actually read his book? If you think Bush is scary, take a good hard look at this guy. Here is a man who has discreetly hinted (in his book at leas) he does not believe in private ownership of land, and has argued for nationalizing property and businesses. No thank you.

 

And yes Wals, politicians MUST be held to the same standards as regular citizens because they ARE regular citizens just doing a government job. The moment there is a separate law for us and them Orwell's worst imaginations will become our reality.

[Tale]

When has environmentalism ever been even a half decent vehicle for advancement? And I don't see anything about your story to imply he didn't actually care about the endangered specie of bird.

[Guard Dog]

When has environmentalism ever been even a half decent vehicle for advancement? And I don't see anything about your story to imply he didn't actually care about the endangered specie of bird.

No, that statement is based on what I know of him personally. Or rather what the people I know, know of him personally. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the entire environmental movement is without merit (that is a whole different subject) and you should know I am no Republican looking to take shots at a Dem just for being a Dem. But so far the "Green Cause" is paying off big for him. After the 2000 election he was dead meat politically. He came out of that court battle looking like a sore loser, and the truth is he was the first presidential candidate in 120 years to lose his home state. He was a man dangling from a cliff by a tuft of grass. Now he is the toast of the Hollywood liberals and everything he says is treated as canon law by the media no matter how preposterous it might be or how little fact his statements may be based on. His name recognition is greater than ever, the 2000 election is in the distant past and if he steps into the race he becomes the immediate front runner with the ultra wealthy of Hollywood just dying to contribute to him.

[LadyCrimson]

However, whether it should or not, hypocrisy does detract from the message. There's no getting around that fact.

I thought I had already stated that it's likely, and does, harm the message's ability to be heard, because of how humans - including myself - percieve these situations. It doesn't mean I can't think it's a shame that this is so.

 

However, when folks on these boards make the charge of Christian hypocrisy, level against an entire group of people no less, I didn't see you, LadyCrimson, jumping up to the defense of Christians because all humans are hypocrits at one time or another. It would be my pleasure for you to cite the example that proves me wrong.

 

Unless I'm misreading, I sense a bit of animosity here - which I find a little surprising. Usually my occasional and generalistic statements are ignored for being/seeming irrelevant to the debate, probably rightly so. :D *shrug*

 

It is true, however, that I very rarely involve myself in political or religious debates, here or anywhere else for that matter - there's no arguing that, nor would I want to. This is mostly because I don't enjoy such debates - I find them depressing more than invigorating and thus, for someone who battles depression, usually something to avoid - but also partly because I'm usually not informed enough to make any relevant contributions. Sometimes I'm in the mood to say something, sometimes not - and when I do, it's usually more of a general nature than specific. So if the fact I don't feel a desire or have the energy to parrot "all humans are hypocrites sometimes" in every thread where it might relate, makes me a hypocrite, well, I don't know if I'd agree with it, but I can understand why one might think so.

 

You were right. You're a hypocrit just like the rest of us.

Yes, yes, I am.

As a friend of mine once said - "there's many things about our society that I loathe, while also being aware I'm part of the problem."

[Gorgon]

Fish and game should be capable of protecting the resources they are there to be a custodian of. It's pretty simple, if you log too much the forest doesen't grow back, if you over fish people lose their livelyhoods. One of the richest fishing grounds anywhere on the planet is in Icelandic waters, because they enforced quotas that would allow populations to grow rather than just replentish themselves.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Gorgon

[Tale]

When has environmentalism ever been even a half decent vehicle for advancement? And I don't see anything about your story to imply he didn't actually care about the endangered specie of bird.

No, that statement is based on what I know of him personally. Or rather what the people I know, know of him personally. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the entire environmental movement is without merit (that is a whole different subject) and you should know I am no Republican looking to take shots at a Dem just for being a Dem. But so far the "Green Cause" is paying off big for him. After the 2000 election he was dead meat politically. He came out of that court battle looking like a sore loser, and the truth is he was the first presidential candidate in 120 years to lose his home state. He was a man dangling from a cliff by a tuft of grass. Now he is the toast of the Hollywood liberals and everything he says is treated as canon law by the media no matter how preposterous it might be or how little fact his statements may be based on. His name recognition is greater than ever, the 2000 election is in the distant past and if he steps into the race he becomes the immediate front runner with the ultra wealthy of Hollywood just dying to contribute to him.

I don't see how becoming finally popular after 30 years of work on a a subject is oh so dastardly and underhanded. He's been trying to change policy in regards to climate change since the, at least, the late 70s. Maybe it's paid off in popularity lately, but the past 25 years of it, it did next to nothing. And he's still stuck with it. Hard to draw from that that it's simply a vehicle for advancement.

[Guard Dog]

Fish and game should be capable of protecting the resources they are there to be a custodian of. It's pretty simple, if you log too much the forest doesen't grow back, if you over fish people lose their livelyhoods. One of the richest fishing grounds anywhere on the planet is in Icelandic waters, because they enforced quotas that would allow populations to grow rather than just replentish themselves.

That was private land though Gorgon, not public. If it were public there would never have been the need to go to court. The state could have just ordered a halt. Or not since the states position was that the damned bird wan't there to begin with. In America, once upon a time, the use of private land was the business of the owner and no one else. My how things have changed.

[Cantousent]

Of course "[Nashville Electric Service] company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information." http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1594368,00.html

So, where are they getting the info?

"Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.

 

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year."

 

And that energy, by the way, is not green energy. He uses normal energy and "invests" in green power sources. Listen, I'm not even attacking the guy on his energy consumption as such. I don't really care. I just think that this is the exact sort of thing that draws fire. It has drawn fire. That's the way it is. So his consumption, according to that most conservative of think tanks, the Associated Press, is only several times more than the average household as opposed to severl times and then a couple more.

The thing is they were never given the utility records. So, how did they get it?

 

And yes, it is green energy. Nashville Electric Service offers a green energy substitution program where you can buy it in set blocks for a premium. I haven't done the math myself, but according to others, the cited killowatt hours and expenses correspond properly to paying this addition premium.

 

I'll take your word for it in regards to the green energy issue. It doesn't change anything about conservation.

 

As it regards the bills, however, we have a Time article stating that the bills were reviewed by "The Associated Press." Now, the think tank might have lied, but the Associated Press gives us those numbers. It's in the very article you cited.

[Meshugger]

/me puts his fist in the air and screams with a nerdy volcun dialect:

 

"CYYRSES!"

 

The political climate must be a deadbeat when people debate on the electrical bills of an ex-politican, submitted by a think-thank. NEVER post the crap any think-thank publishes (their job is to bend the truth according to the payment of their client, left or right). There are more important issues in global politics than this pile of filth.

 

Global warming isn't a political issue that someone can "believe" in. It's already a proven scientifical fact, but the scientists are still investigating on how much impact humanity, the sun and other parts of nature has on it, and even if it's still part of a cycle. They simply don't have enough data to come to anyconclusive evidence yet. Then these "think-thanks" come in, some have the "sky is falling, act now!"-message, usually cited by enviromental groups and Al Gore and others say "Everything's fine, no worries, can we drill more oil in alaska?" (No points for guessing on who are using those think-thanks).

 

There's nothing wrong with taking precausions, but i hate it when science is being used as an agenda by different political and industrial groups.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Meshugger

[taks]

It's already a proven scientifical fact, but the scientists are still investigating on how much impact humanity, the sun and other parts of nature has on it, and even if it's still part of a cycle.

ok, i guess because the media say so it must be...

 

i hate to tell you, but there is no such thing as proven scientifical fact. that's not the way science works in the first place, i.e. the goal of science is not to prove anything, it is merely to disprove alternatives. anybody whose life/career is based on science can tell you that. second, there is no such thing as scientific (not scientifical) fact anyway.

 

taks