Monday, April 23, 2007
Laurie David, the producer of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, is quite the chickengreen. Even ignoring the private jet she uses to fly from campus to campus hectoring college students to sacrifice for the good of the planet, David's hypocrisy is arresting. Is it that she is utterly unaware of how she appears, or does she think that Americans are idiots? Is there a plausible third explanation?
Yeah these celeberties are always trying be so PC i mean AL GORES movie is nothing more then his own over inflated ego and his his own rediclous bloster he is a big tomw blow hard and so it this DAVID yaho Kind of like TED TURNER another over inflated ego
She was with Sheryl Crow when they swooped down on Rove about global warming. I hear that Crow has the gall to state "you work for me".
Personally, I would've ripped her a new one. She's one person in 300 million he "works for", and with a sample of that size, chances are, she's well balanced by many who may believe it's an "issue", but not one that merits the frothing going on. What a pompous self-important ass she made of herself.
In my opinion, few politicians or "celebrities" would stand up to the bright lights when measuring what they do versus what they say ... all those "inconenient truths" ...
A postscript on not-so-self-aware Ms. David is here:
This quote is laff-out-loud funny:
"Still, David is the first to admit that her mainstream brand of environmentalism does not require sacrificing a Hollywood standard of living. Though she wouldn't be caught dead driving anything with lower gas mileage than a Prius, she offers no apologies for her super-sized house, her extensive wardrobe, or her frequent-flyer lifestyle. It's time, she says, for environmentalism to lose its purer-than-thou attitude."
I humbly retract the answer to TH's question in my previous post. The correct answer is "Ms. David is dumb as a fence post."
The consensus among others I've read is that they regard themselves and are regarded by others as the chosen few. Thus they may take a few liberties as they guide the ungrateful, unwashed masses to a higher level of understanding. And, of course, proper behavior.
My view is similar, but I would elaborate some. To many people, moral questions only exist at the level of government. Getting the government to do the right thing makes one moral, irrespective of one's personal actions. "How we look" as a society is the defining morality. The actual cleaning up of anything, feeding any real poor people, or defending the oppressed is not the point; the appearance is.
There was a wincing tolerance of these people by true environmentalists, because they gave environmental issues more prominence. I think the people actually doing the heavy lifting are starting to distance themselves from these poor spokespersons, finding them to be more liability than benefit.
So is your problem with her supposed hypocrisy, or her position? The right wing and those of you who were pulling your hair out this weekend as everything was GREEN confuse me, truly. It seems you all are lashing out mindlessly, eyes clouded with tears and noses running with snot like so many bullies who've been found out. Leave the chick alone. Her husband gave you clowns Seinfeld after all (or was that too Jewish)?
Frankly Id be more concerned about McCain, Rudy et al being closet greenies. Exxon doesn't quite have the clout with them that it does with DICK Cheney. Indeed one of my college classmates who works for a rather famous monthy news magazine overheard one of McCain's folk snarking to one of Mitt Romney's allies at the recent Correspondant's Dinner down here in New Rome: "Jeez, what'd they have against Stephen Colbert? Rich Little was friggin' retarded." To which the Romney dude replied."Which explains why the President seemed to like it." I hear Mitt's a closet greenie, too. Be afraid...hahahahaha
MEMO TO: Sheryl Crow
cc: Laurie David
I was wondering if you can help me. I had a bout of diarrhea today, and, as a result I've used up approx. 11 years and 6 months worth of toilet tissue. I feel terrible about this, but I couldn't help it. What should I do?
Relieved in Texas
Of course I can't speak for TigerHawk, but as for me it's her position I think is wrong. My take after examining the facts is that the warming that is occuring is mostly natural and there's little or nothing we can do to change it.
I do understand that one can be both a hypocrite and correct in your position, that the one does not necessarily negate the other.
Most of the people I know who profess to be oh-so-concerned about global warming drive vehicles that I know don't get more than 20mpg. They live in huge houses and run their A/C when it gets above 80. Most people just want to sound like they want to do something about global warming, when in reality they don't.
The Global Warming crowd just wants to control every aspect of people's lives. That's Laurie David and Sheryl Crow in a nutshell. Two rich idiots who want to control the little people.
Let them eat cake I suppose. And only use one square.
IF Global Warming is due mostly to man-made causes we will just have to get used to it. Good luck in persuading 1.3 billion Chinese and around a billion Indians to go back to being dirt poor. Cars, trucks, planes, coal-fired electrical plants are going to continue. Carbon Dioxide is going to be dumped in ever greater amounts. Get used to it.
Perhaps though YOU can give up everything western and live in a mud hut. I doubt you find many takers for that though among most Americans. Or that you yourself will live in the mud to save the polar bears.
Exactly. As for me, it's the hypocrisy that I find disgusting. I run my A/C and keep it cold (although it's an extremely energy efficient system), I use lots of gasoline, and have too much stuff.
Most everyone, including the greenest Greenie, uses stuff everyday that's been made by some underaged or child labor. Produced in the next low-cost provider, without regard to pollution or other working conditions. Think about the plastics and trash we produce every day, and the effort and environmental damage done to produce the product before we "turn it into landfill". I hear a styrofoam cup takes 500 years to degrade.
This entire matter is just another data point in the John Kerry hypocrisy of "I don't own an SUV, but my family own a fleet, a jet or two, four mansions, etc.", or John Edwards "green" 29000 house.
Chambers, There's nothing "supposedly hypocritical" about this 'chick'. I'm not reading comments that anyone is afraid of a green conservative candidate, but you apparently are.
C'wmon Anonymous (and others), why are you proving Sacha Baron Cohen right? He told the Brit press after the wild success of "Borat" that he chose Red States and folks with dumbass Red State views because they were such easy marks. Lord have mercy dude...live in a mud hut? Give up all things "Western?" You're serious, huh? Well first I'd say at one time mud huts were pretty "western" when non-western folks were planting the seeds, literally, of civilized human culture. But from that moment on, we were changing this earth (actually we helped wipe out some mega fauna all over the world from hunting) and we need to be smart about this place, our only home. And yeah, that means maybe Sheryl Crow (and come on guys, all of you thought she was hot at one time but you cry babies go into knee-jerk mode at the slightest provocation; I bet if she was alone with you wearing nothing but her cowboy boots and her guitar you'd be writing checks to Al Gore, lickity-split) needs to travel to China and India and Eastern Europe first, because nothing we do here will matter one damn bit if they don't change their ways as well...
Since there has been a lot of speculation on the subject, my views on climate change are these:
1. In all likelihood, the world's climate is changing rapidly.
2. The cause may or may not be anthropogenic, and it may or may not be due to carbon in the atmosphere. It is, however, more likely than not due to both.
3. If we can reduce the incremental carbon dumped into the atmosphere while setting all other considerations equal, it would be a good thing.
4. Notwithstanding #3, a rapidly changing climate will require humans to generate more inanimate energy, not less. We will need more energy to deflect the impact of the climate, grow crops under arduous conditions, move people around, and so forth. Any plan to cut carbon, therefore, should also incorporate increased, rather than decreased, energy requirements.
5. Some of that energy can certainly come from conservation.
6. Some of the carbon reduction can certainly come from conservation.
7. By far the most efficient mechanism to achieve both is taxation. I have long advocated a carbon tax.
8. The "hair shirt" environmentalists will not persuade Americans, Chinese, Indians, or anybody else to destroy their lives in defense of the planet's climate. At least not until it is demonstrably too late. They are especially unlikely to make their case if they themselves claim exemption from the sacrifice.
9. The biggest problem, by far, is the reliance of the United States and China on coal to produce electricity. The only way to produce the power generated by the hundreds of coal-fired plants in the U.S. and China is to replace it with nuclear power. The problem, of course, is that virtually all mainstream environmentalists oppose nuclear power as well -- their activists cut their teeth fighting nukes -- so their only recourse is to "hair shirt" sacrifice.
10. Hence, the political stalemate.
What do you expect from a jewess? This is the same mindset of Susan Sontag and Gloria Steinem-founders of feminism, for those that forgot. Remember who Hollyweird is owned and run by. Nothing new here. Ooops, I forgot. We cannot criticize jews, especially when the majority of them are in these kinds of positions...
Thanks. Actually that was written a 6-year-old Malaysian commenter being paid 25 cents a day. I've found that off-shoring my comments gives me more time to do other things like studying the research by that one scientist who disagrees with global warming and attending the Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Political Study.
This Crowe/David thing was given a couple of hours on his radio show and it's amazing how his fans' comments and these comments sound identical.
Did you know he takes on liberals with half his brain tied behind his back?