May 25, 2007
"But isn't the real issue ...?"
I've heard just a bit too much of this from liberals, lately. Most recently it was Leonardo DiCaprio the other day getting all self-righteously testy about a reporter questioning his use of private jets.
"I try to travel commercial as much as I can," he said. He added that he was irritated with the media for going after former Vice President Al Gore, whose own film "An Inconvenient Truth" picked up an Oscar. Gore was slammed for the amount of power his sprawling Tennessee mansion uses.
"We're all trying the best we can; truly, we really are," he said.
Oh yeah, we're sure you are, Leo. With your massive salary, you mean to tell us that you cannot find means to travel that are consistent with the views you spout -- and want everyone else to follow? Leo also added more about Al Gore:
"Don't shoot the messenger", he said. "This person is trying to relay a message to the public and the way that he travels should not be splayed out like that." (Link)
Why not? Why isn't it relevant? What about the 'ol maxim "Actions speak louder than words"? Why is OK for one to preach how others should live, yet do just the opposite?
Then there was Alan Colmes last night on "Hannity and Colmes." The argument was about the endlessly played-out feud between "The View's" Rosie O'Donnell and Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Colmes chimes in DiCaprio-esquely (paraphrase): "Isn't the real issue that it's good what Rosie is doing because it stirs a debate about the Iraq War?" Huh?? She implies the American military are terrorists, quotes wildly inaccurate numbers regarding the Iraqi dead, spouts tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about 9/11, but the "REAL" issue is ... it stirs debate??
This takes me to Bernie Goldberg who had a chat with O'Reilly guest host John Kasich last night. Kasich was still miffed at how the recent Pew Research Poll that showed 26% of Muslim-Americans under 30 believe it "OK" to use suicide bombing terrorism. What really miffed him wasn't so much that figure -- it was how it was covered in various media outlets. For instance, take a look here, here and here. As Goldberg noted, with a mainstream media that'll find the negative in just about any story (contrary to its usual [leftist] values, that is), it now chooses to accentuate the positive -- even though a highly significant proportion (26 percent!!) of Islamic Americans under age 30 think suicide terrorism is OK!! In addition, Goldberg was dead-on when he said that if this same Pew poll had indicated that 26% of white Americans under 30 think "blacks shouldn't have the right to vote," or that 26% of Christian Americans under 30 thought it was "OK to kill Muslims," what would the media highlight then? There is no way in hell that we'd see a headline such as "Three-Quarters of White Americans Think Blacks Voting is OK."
Similarly, getting back to the hypocrisy issue, can you imagine Sean Hannity saying to Alan Colmes if, say, a vehemently anti-immigration racist (like David Duke) was spewing something like "All immigration of brown-skinned folks into the US must cease" that "Come on, Alan, isn't it a good thing that he's stirring up debate about an important issue -- immigration?" Or, to a lesser extreme, Hannity saying that about an outspoken anti-immigrant politician who knowingly hired illegal aliens as nannies and landscapers? What would Alan Colmes' reaction be?
Posted by Hube at May 25, 2007 03:30 PM
You know what it would be. And rightly so.
It's not self-righteousness. It's exasperation over the idiocy of the conservatards who try to twist this issue into one about one man.
Riiiiiight. So it matters not a whit that Gore, DiCaprio or whoever else are hypocrites of the highest order. Certainly, then, it shouldn't matter what *I* or anyone else does about global warming then, as long as we "talk a good game"!!
Further still, you must not have any problem with my hypotheticals.
Gore, DiCaprio or whoever else are hypocrites of the highest order.
The highest order? Ok. But I'm assuming you have zero respect for Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, et al.
After all, they avoided the military draft, yet actively encourage young men and women to take that very route for the betterment of the nation, and encourage people to support the type of war from which they themselves chose to run.
After all, as you say:
"Actions speak louder than words"
Indeed, there are many environmentalists one can prefer to Al Gore and good ol' Lenny. After all, why should we listen to preaching about how it should be, from folks who won't walk the walk?
Oh, and the Rosie-Lizzy flap was worth it just to hear Donald Trump say Hasselbeck was right when she called him obnoxious, but that she's the dumbest person on television!
Don't have much to argue with there, dan. Although, enlighten me to Hastert's transgressions.
Also, who are some of the environmentalists we should be listening to -- those "who walk the walk"?
I know a ton of people who compost, who own hybrid cars, who do all the right things, just because they want to. They're not "famous" environmentalists, so they're not using a lot of jet fuel to fly around the globe. But that's really the issue, isn't it? Can one really be Al Gore and not use jet fuel? As wingnut13 says, the flap over Gore is, in fact, political silliness -- and you certainly know that.
Leo on the private jet, however, is not. He should shut his titanic mouth.
Also, one that really bothered me was John Kerry and his pathetic explanation about "his wife's" SUV. That was ridiculous.
And as another side note and point of agreement, I had actually noticed that suicide bomber stat as well. It's one of the rare things that that self-promoting, politically-motivated jackass Bernard Goldberg is exactly right about!
The issue isn't using jet fuel, dan -- it's using private jets in lieu of commercial flights. And don't tell me Gore is "too important" to fly commercial. That, and his titanic house energy bill.
For someone who believes there is no debate about GW (or rational people cannot so debate it), and indeed WON'T debate it, the pompous Gore deserves all the scorn for his hypocrisy that he gets.
BTW, your description of Goldberg fits you to a tee perfectly. At least the "jackass" part.
Wow, I make a point you agree with, then bash Leo and John Kerry, agree with your point about the media's coverage of the Islam statistics, and get called a jackass! Sweet. If I were John Boehner, I'd break down and weep. But alas... ;)
That was for the inevitable wise-assery that was sure to come, dan. You're as predictable as Bush's bad grammar! ;-)
No problem! I aim to please. And thanks for your predictable inability to acknowledge that someone frequently agrees with you and isn't a tinfoil hat liberal, just because he's a smartass who hates the far right. :)
Oh, puh-lease. My head would spin 360 deg. if you managed just a fraction of the acquiescence I cede to you. With you it's always "Yes, BUT...." I do lean right you know, dan. If you're coming here for balance, you're not nearly as smart as I thought. So stop acting as if I'm "leaving something out" in my posts b/c I don't cover both POVs like you think I should. You certainly never did that at Dan Nation when you actually covered politics, did you? As I mentioned once before, this routine gets wearisome. Go to the NY Times for both sides. Oh, wait ...
And who is this "someone frequently agrees" with me?
they avoided the military draft, an yet have drafted nobody to fight in the Global War on Terror
It seems to me that considering the screaming coming from environuts that the end is nigh that one should expect that not a one of them uses any fossil fuels by this point.
Environmentalists also tend to inflate their own numbers, but the 5% or so of the population they make up going off the grid completely would do far more then Kyoto ever would to lower carbon output...