Al Gore's "Inconvenient" Hypocrisy

@MrNiceGuy (4141)
United States
February 26, 2007 6:00pm CST
Turns out, Al Gore's 20 room mansion uses 20 times the energy a usual American household uses, and his power usage went UP after his movie came out! Talk about hypocrisy. And I wonder how much money he makes from the lecture circuit/movie.... http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
4 people like this
6 responses
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
27 Feb 07
Good morning MrNiceGuy, I concur with your point about the hypocrisy of not walking the talk. However, I think the hypocrisy argument may be a distraction from a key, vital point. It is so engrained in both the Lib's & the Con's to perpetuate polarity, that they both can lose sight of what is really important. In this case, both should agree that finding alternatives to dependence on foreign energy sources is critical! After all, the root of the word "Conservative" is conserve. And, the argument is not whether we should return the world to candlelight. Neither wants to see that. We all like our modern conveniences! I adamantly disagree with the theory that our cars and cows are the cause of global warming. That argument does NOT hold water. So this is not a global warming argument. What is the issue here is: How do we promote the development and use of energy sources that do not entangle us with politico's who are hell-bent on destroying capitalism? In this instance, I am heartily disappointed with Rush, Sean, Ann & the rest who (for polarity's sake) are irrationally arguing against steps (albeit given with a high note of hysteria!) to disentangle us from the status quo, whereby we monetarilly compensate 'unfriendly's' because of our energy addiction. OK, so we're energy addicted, those that hate us have energy availability, we give them billions of dollars each year in exchange for those resources, they spend the money 'arming up', so that they can bite the hand that feeds them. This completely irrational merry-go-round needs to stop! If you saw Hannity & Colm's last night, it was historical. It was the first time that I have ever agreed with Allan Colm's side. Ann sounded like a blathering idiot. Sean couldn't see beyond the hypocrisy argument, and much my surprise no one veered the argument to true, short-term & long-term energy independence, and how that will contribute to a long-term easing of global tensions. Without the billions we give them, our enemies will be less able to fund their arms build up. We as American's need to re-find our fortitude, and ingenuity so that we stop feeding the hand that wants to bite us! Just my $.02!
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
27 Feb 07
Oh and MrNiceGuy, Honestly, I don't care how much $ Gore makes. I figure he had to come up with some way to put food on the table. If his professional success depends on there being "... one born every minute" (PT Barnum), then so be it. What matters is I know he won't be getting my dime!
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
27 Feb 07
" And I wonder how much money he makes from the lecture circuit/movie.... " Let me get this straight... a conservative is complaining about someone's right to make money? Just because someone is liberal or an environmentalist doesn't mean he has to take a vow of poverty. I thought conservatives were all for individual rights?
3 people like this
• United States
27 Feb 07
Speaking of "Inconvenient Truth", how many times did you hear on the news that Al Gore won an Oscar? No, he did not. The doumentary did win, but not Al Gore, the documentary's commentator. The documentary's actual creators did bring Al Gore to the stage with them. That team's leader made a little speech where he said that they were sharing the Oscar with Al Gore and he handed the Oscar to Al Gore. The representative of the Academy, who had rightfully handed the Oscar to the leader of the team that made the documentary, did not give the Oscar to Al Gore. As the makers of the documentary left the stage, Al Gore handed the Oscar back. This was because Al Gore did not win an Oscar. He was in a documentary that won an Oscar. Al Gore no more won an Oscar than the star of a movie wins an Oscar when the movie wins best picture but not any acting awards. Al Gore just seems to have "Inconvenient" connected to his name.
2 people like this
• United States
27 Feb 07
"Oscar winners can, and sometimes do, invite whomever they want on stage with them--the actors, the producers, etc. Is that really a big deal?" Of course, it is not a big deal. The big deal is when the guy who was invited up, but did not win, is reported on the news to have won.
2 people like this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
27 Feb 07
Oscar winners can, and sometimes do, invite whomever they want on stage with them--the actors, the producers, etc. Is that really a big deal?
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
27 Feb 07
That's actually not a big deal, either. Gore was the lead cast member, and the movie was based on his presentations, which you see him making. The film also talks about Gore's personal history. To call Gore just a "commentator" is way off base. Documentaries often benefit from having a hihg-profile personality appearing in them, giving voiceovers, or even simply promoting them. If Al Gore hadn't been so involved in this film, it probably wouldn't have gotten a nomination, much less an Oscar.
2 people like this
• United States
6 Mar 07
now that just bites! he at least should put up some solar panels!
@Denmarkguy (1845)
• United States
27 Feb 07
It's a weird cycle, if you think about it... You almost HAVE to be "famous" to have an impact on the world that's far reaching. Fame-- not to be confused with INfamy-- almost always involves some kind of large monetary reward... as a result of which, people tend to accumulate the trappings of wealth. Then these people turn to altruistic and philanthropic endeavors... while still being caught in the web of the material world. Ironically, Sam Walton-- while at the helm of a company (Wal-Mart) that "raped" the American small town landscape while making him billions from imported sweat shop goods and had some of the worst employee relations out there-- kept living in a double-wide mobile home and driving an old truck LONG after he could have bought the entire town.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
27 Feb 07
Hi Denmarkguy, Although I respect your view, I'll ask you to think about a couple things: I have never worked for Walmart. But know someone (well) who has made his career with Sam's Club Management. According to him, the Walmart organization promotes from within, they reward according to performance, and they offer a smorgasboord of benefits, which the employee can accept or decline based on individual want & circumstance. I can't argue with any of those tendencies. As for imported items: when I was fresh out of college I worked for a wholesaler who supplied one of the largest chain stores in the USA with product (not Walmart, but another), and their entire line was imported from sweat shops around the globe. The vast majority of tags on items in US retail stores identify the item as being imported from less developed countries (LDCs). So, Walmart is certainly not alone. And finally, Walmart's corporate policy of buying from LDCs has done more for the improvement of the living conditions in LDCs than virtually any other conglomerate. Granted, someone in Indonesia or China may only be making $3 per day, but without the Walmart contracts they'd certainly be making less. As those sweatshop workers improve their professional skills, some of them will surely start their own businesses. And, remembering the sweatshop conditions of their past, they might be inclined to offer better working conditions, or start unions to protect worker's rights. This is the way America developed. Our forefathers had Europe to buy our early products. Then as the world grew, so did the marketplace. This is also true of LDCs. Those folks need international contracts to develop their economies, and personal standard of living. Furthermore, as those LDCs develop their economies, they also develop their interdependence with the globe. People who are interdependent tend to make an effor to 'get along'. When people's basic human needs are met, they are free to focus on better education and self-improvement. This is what's meant by 'capitalism fuels peace'. One other really important point: If American's aren't making t-shirts and sneakers anymore ... it frees up the work force to delve into emerging markets. Technological development and new product ingenuity, that's where America should be focusing it's energy! Anyone can make sneakers. Not everyone can invent the computer or the internet, thereby catapaulting us into a whole new world. It's up to America to either cling to the past, or step into the future. I vote for looking forward! Just some food for thought.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
27 Feb 07
Denmarkguy, If you had your "sarcasm button" turned on as you opined, then I'll ask that we all have a good laugh at my 'preaching to the choir'. It occurred to me after the fact that you were probably being facetious, but it was too late to retract. It would seem that I get the 'ding' award for the day!
2 people like this
• India
27 Feb 07
Well!! it is a hypocrisy surely. But then we have to explore the introspects of earnings & tax payments. Is Mr. Al Gore clean & his life records are what matters. Surely a lobby can help form the right frame for Al Gore hypocrisy.
2 people like this