Nov. 14, 2007
See if you can identify the specific owner of each of the houses described in this story. Then ask yourself, which owner really cares about the environment and who is a big hypocrite?
House #1 – A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool, and a pool house, and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
House #2 – A 4,000 sq.ft. home designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.
. . . View the Homes and find out Who the Owners are
this is the type of information that should be front page news!
Yes, this type of information should be front page news on all major newspapers and TV channels. But we know that the mainstream media could care less about the truth or bother to hold accountable a liberal-left Democrat that’s made millions from spreading lies and scaremongering.
I’m glad there’s at least one Orthodox Christian venue where these issues are exposed and discussed.
Well, the Al Gore house story has shown up on USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, ABC News, and a variety of other sources. In addition, if you do a Google search on “Gore Hypocrite” you’ll get 570,000 search hits. This has been reported for the last 10 months.
This is over the big news story that Al Gore has a large house that he bought in 2002, a house that was already constructed, and that uses a lot of energy. He is a wealthy person and a kind of celebrity, and those folks typically do a lot of entertaining and have frequent guests. He and his wife also use the house for office space. Frankly, I would be surprised if he lived in a 1400 square foot duplex and rented warehouse space for entertaining.
In other words, for people in Al Gore’s group, a house isn’t just a place to live in; it’s a tool, so to speak, used for other purposes, and most of the rest of us don’t need a very big “tool.” If Gore didn’t live in the house, it’s not like it would be torn down and replaced with solar-heated teepees.
Even putting the worst spin on the scandalous house, it seems to me that probably very few people live according to their stated principles all the time. When we don’t, I don’t think that the label of “hypocrite” is automatically deserved. I suppose it would be better if Gore lived in a small house, but then the right would simply find something else to criticize — his car is too big, or he takes plane trips too often, or he’s not a vegan, or whatever.
For the right, the important thing is always to “stick it” to anyone to their left, and there are countless ways to do that. Actually, I thought the information about Bush’s house was interesting, but of course the article couldn’t just be about that.
Ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, ho! Jim, thanks for the great laugh. You shall be known henceforth as “JimH, AlGore apologist.” 😉 Yet again, when given the opportunity to hit one out of the park, the liberals embrace their hypocritical icons without an ounce of objective criticism and some of that “fair give and take” they keep demanding from the conservatives.
No Jim, the reason AlGore is a HYPOCRITE is not because he has a big house and must entertain. It is because he preaches a dogma of nature worship and spreads a capitalism-hating mantra, while he personally benefits to the tune of millions of dollars from the fruits of the very capitalist system that enables him to have his multi-thousand feet mansions, his SUVs, private jets, sports cars, boats, expensive dinners, etc. etc.. He is trying to destroy the US engine of production, limit the income mobility of the middle-class and the poor, and bring about the misuse of hundreds of billions of dollars of capital on useless “green” initiatives based on fantasyland stories about how a colorless and oderless gas that makes up 0.037% of the atmosphere will bring climate armageddon unless we all stop driving cars and eating meat.
He is a hypocrite because here he is a multi-millionare with a “carboon footprint” 50 to 100 times bigger than the rest of us and “polluting like there’s no tomorrow” (to use his own lingo) meanwhile he admonishes Americans for not conserving enough and advising us to ride bikes and turn off the bathroom light to “conserve.”
Chris B. writes: “Ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, ho! Jim, thanks for the great laugh. You shall be known henceforth as “JimH, AlGore apologist.” ”
I’ve been called worse.
I’m not a Gore apologist. I even fell asleep watching his movie. After all, I said that it would be better if he had a smaller house. But I think it’s fair to put the situation in context. For all I know there are wealthy conservative celebrities who have large houses but advocate energy conservation. I think it is entirely fair to report on Gore’s house, but I just don’t think it rises to the level of scandal or hypocrisy.
Chris B.: “[Gore is a hypocrite] because he preaches a dogma of nature worship and spreads a capitalism-hating mantra . . . ”
But he started an investment firm focusing on “green” investments, or whatever you would call them. For that he was criticized in this venue some months ago for having a “conflict of interest.” He can’t win.
Chris B.: “He is trying to destroy the US engine of production . . . ”
But if he’s a multimillionaire, then he must have much of that invested in the stock market. So why would he try to “destroy the US engine of production” if it is in his best interest not to do that?
I’m just not sure why this is news at all. Sure, Al Gore’s a hypocrite. But as Fr. Hans would say, hypocrisy is still a tip of the hat to the great moral tradition. Besides, I’ve been told over and over again here to keep to the ideas and away from personal conduct and that personal conduct does not invalidate an idea, yet he we are critiquing conduct to invalidate the idea.
Speaking of hypocrites, isn’t Rep. Bob Barr (R), the author of the Defense of Marriage Act on his third divorce at this point? The day I see this on FOX News, I’d be amazed.
JamesK writes: I’m just not sure why this is news at all.
It sure was news to me and the hundreds of visitors on this site! Just goes to show how well the mainstream media is at covering up for the illiberal statists, especially multi-millionaire Democrats like AlGore.
Just like I guarantee you that it’s news to a vast majority of people in the US that carbon dioxide makes up only 0.037% of our atmosphere!! When I have polled my students for the last few years, 100% of them believed that CO2 is anywhere from 10% to 80% of the atmosphere! Not sure if I should laugh or cry.
Jim, President Bush also entertains at his home. If I’m correct I believe he has had several world leaders there during the past several years.
Jim you’re an apologist for Al’s hypocrisy. If he truly cared about what he pontificated he would expend the money to retrofit his house to meet some kind of green standard. Instead of promoting a feel good solution of carbon offset credits that he’s making money on.
JBL writes: “Jim, President Bush also entertains at his home. If I’m correct I believe he has had several world leaders there during the past several years.”
Within a couple of miles where I live there are houses comparable to Gore’s. Believe me, that’s not my neighborhood. But these are people who are wealthy business owners, who I suppose entertain large numbers of people on a regular basis. In the past I’ve been in a couple of their houses, and their kitchens are bigger than my living room. Their kitchens are bigger than most restaurant kitchens. They can feed a hundred people and not bat an eye, assuming that the caterer doesn’t do that for them.
You know, if Bush can do that in a smaller house, more power to him. I haven’t been in his house, but it sounds like an interesting place.
JBL: “Jim you’re an apologist for Al’s hypocrisy. If he truly cared about what he pontificated he would expend the money to retrofit his house to meet some kind of green standard.”
As a result of this discussion, I know more about Al Gore’s house than I ever wanted to know. He pays a few hundreds dollars a month more for “green power.” He wanted to install solar panels, but apparently there was a zoning issue that is now being resolved. Does that make a difference? Do you care? Do I care? Is this some kind of monumental, earth-shattering issue? I never gave money to Al Gore, and I fell asleep during his movie, and suddenly I’m his “apologist?”
But what is all this actually about? is it about hypocrisy? If so, let’s also talk about the hypocrisy of the right. Let’s talk about not just Bush’s house, but his use of tax dollars to finance a baseball stadium in which he was an investor while opposing tax increases. Let’s talk about the “family values” crew and their various adulteries, divorces, and homosexual relationships.
Don’t want to do there? Neither do I. That’s why I have grown tired of the whole anti-left, anti-right thing. I find myself drawn into that stuff, but there are much more important issues out there. You know, like we fret over whether Al Gore is a hypocrite even as we transfer tens of billions of dollars of wealth to Islamic oil producing countries. What’s the priority?
. You know, like we fret over whether Al Gore is a hypocrite even as we transfer tens of billions of dollars of wealth to Islamic oil producing countries. What’s the priority?
Yea you right wingers – don’t you get it? You are supposed to fix these problems with grand left-wing policy initiatives, and ignore what the left-wingers actually do….Keep digging Jim, keep digging…:)
Christopher writes: “You are supposed to fix these problems with grand left-wing policy initiatives, and ignore what the left-wingers actually do…”
Well, let’s see. At the macro level the Gore house became news about 10 months ago. The story has appeared in a variety of mainstream sources. As I said before, a Google search on “Gore hypocrite” returns more than half a million hits. So this is old news.
At the micro level, the Gore house story was presented here in a lead article some months ago. In addition to that Gore has been the subject of discussion here throughout various global warming discussions. So it’s hard for me to see how all of that constitutes “ignoring” the story.
On a more important level, I’m not sure what we’re supposed to take away from the story. In other words, what is the “point” of the story? That Gore is a hypocrite? Even if he is, in the broad expanse of the universe, what does that really matter? Even a hypocrite can advocate the right thing, even while he does the wrong thing.
Is the point to denounce hypocrisy of all kinds? If so, why limit it to Gore? There’s a seemingly continual river of notable conservative “family values” people having affairs both gay and hetero, getting divorces, going into drug and alcohol rehab, and so on. How about some articles on them?
By the way, I think the new lead article on education by Paul Weyrich is very good. It deals with ideas, not people. Weyrich plays the ball, not the man, as they say in soccer. I disagree with Weyrich on many things, but in this article he focuses on ideas and there is nothing in his article that could be considered a “hit piece.”
I’m not sure what we’re supposed to take away from the story.
Think, hard.
That Gore is a hypocrite?
Actually, I don’t think he even tries to tip his hat to virtue (as he defines it) here, so granting him hypocrite status might be going to far.
There’s a seemingly continual river of notable conservative “family values” people having affairs both gay and hetero, getting divorces, going into drug and alcohol rehab, and so on. How about some articles on them?
Because they already are dragged across the coals in the MSM. Don’t need to point them out. Besides, they are dumped under the bus by their fellow family values folks pretty quick.
there is nothing in his article that could be considered a “hit piece.”
Yep, you keep calling this particular article (about Gore) a “hit piece”. The interesting idea it brings up is the disconnect between knee jerk liberalism of Gore, and others (how about Cheryl Crow’s 1 sheet of TP) and their actual lifestyles.
If you don’t want to talk about it, why don’t you go Troll somewhere else?
Is the point to denounce hypocrisy of all kinds? If so, why limit it to Gore?
Answer to question 1: No.
Answer to question 2:
It seems that many on the left hate to see a leftist in the press (or mentioned on a blog) for hypocrisy, even though various conservatives (justifiably at times), and sometimes whole segments of society like the “family values crew” or the “religious right,” are routinely accused of hypocrisy.
I think most people, to one extent or another, exhibit hypocrisy at various times. Of course there are the family values folks who have affairs or get divorced. This is old news, it is often in the news, it is tragic, and it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of what the “family values crew” advocate. In fact, in many ways, it confirms it.
As argued above, perhaps using tax dollars to finance the purchase of a baseball team while arguing for lower taxes is hypocrisy. Perhaps not. That would depend on the circumstances of how high the tax rate is, the benefit of the baseball team to the community, the overall budget of the state/municipality involved, etc.
Mr. Gore proclaims to Americans that the world is coming to an end, that this is because of the their trucks and 2,500 sq ft homes, and then purchases a 20 room / 8 bath / 20,000 sq ft mansion. Mr. Gore claims “carbon neutrality” to justify this excess (despite paying extra for “green power,” his natural gas usage is many times above average), and implies that average Americans should go spend money on carbon offsets like him. The catch is that his carbon offsets are investments business interests with an expectation of a return, while the offsets in fashion for everyone else are just certificates or paperweights that prove they purchased a carbon offset. Clearly, the problem with Mr. Gore is that he takes hypocrisy to a newsworthy extreme.
Is Mr. Gore’s mansion necessary for entertainment or office space? Not at all. He could rent a hall for entertainment, which would be utilized every night of the week by someone or another. I bet his house is used for entertainment one or two times a month at the most. How many polar bears have drowned because Gore doesn’t want to rent a hall for his parties? If Gore is right about the climate, there is no excuse for this profligacy!
Mr. Gore is saying that the world will end and that we should make serious sacrifices to avert or moderate the perceived crisis. At the same time, he makes no sacrifice himself, and contributes without necessity (if he is correct) to the end of the world. Instead, he seems to argue that because of his inherited fortune (from oil money, no less!) or because of his importance to the environment, that he should burn huge amounts of natural gas, live in a huge house, and fly here and there as he pleases.
If Mr. Gore really believed his own rhetoric he would live in a much more efficient house, at least. And this fact points to what is newsworthy: Al Gore is either a hypocritical scammer or he is an idiot. Due to his pivotal role in the global warming controversy, this has important implications for both sides of the debate.
D. George writes: “It seems that many on the left hate to see a leftist in the press (or mentioned on a blog) for hypocrisy, even though various conservatives (justifiably at times), and sometimes whole segments of society like the “family values crew” or the “religious right,” are routinely accused of hypocrisy.”
Concerning the topic under discussion, there was an earlier article with almost the same content. Same house, same person, same accusation, same blog. Perhaps it will become a monthly feature.
With certain of the family values people the least of their problems is hypocrisy. When a senator tries to solicit gay sex in a public restroom, or head of the National Association of Evangelicals pays a gay hooker for sex and crystal meth, there’s something worse than hypocrisy going on, something more pathological or disturbed. It would be like Gore fighting global warming while starting forest fires.
Frankly, I think the “h” word is overused. Try this test: do a google search on the name of any politically active or even well-known person, followed by the word “hypocrite,” and you almost always get a number of hits. It even works with Mother Teresa. At the point at which everyone is a hypocrite the word ceases to mean very much.
I think the idea is that if a person supports a certain cause, but acts in any way inconsistently with that cause, or fails to support any other similar cause, then that constitutes hypocrisy.
So if you are concerned about Darfur, but fail to express similar concern about some other situation that someone, somewhere in the world thinks merits similar concern, then you’re a hypocrite. If you advocate for the poor, but have a big house, then you’re a hypocrite. If you say that people should abstain from meat except for fish, then you’re a hypocrite, because fish suffer too. And so on. As some have noted, a certain amount of hypocrisy is a good thing, because it keeps us from being fanatics.
What happens eventually is that it is impossible for anyone, anywhere, to support any cause or advocate for any position without being called a hypocrite. In a world of discourse awash in accusations of hypocrisy, the best answer to a charge of hypocrisy is “so what?”
Concerning the topic under discussion, there was an earlier article with almost the same content. Same house, same person, same accusation, same blog. Perhaps it will become a monthly feature.
In a world of discourse awash in accusations of hypocrisy, the best answer to a charge of hypocrisy is “so what?”
It depends on the act of hypocrisy involved. I agree that charges of hypocrisy are probably made too frequently, but that doesn’t mean that all hypocrisy is unnewsworthy. Whether this particular article is repeated on this blog is not for me to decide, but if it is an important issue, why not?
Ted Haggard and Larry Craig are peripheral figures in the evangelical and/or conservative circles, at best. When their actions were exposed, nobody in those circles defended their behavior. Al Gore is, for better or worse, the leading advocate of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Furthermore, when his actions were exposed all sorts of like-minded apologists came out on his behalf.
If Al Gore doesn’t live as if his actions are hastening the end of the world, I think people should ask why. Is it because he is evil (doesn’t care about his contribution to the end of the world), or is it because he doesn’t really believe the hypothesis he publicly defends. While none of this confirms or refutes the hypothesis, it should at least raise serious public debate within environmentalist circles about whether Gore is a suitable spokesman for the cause. Why do so few environmentalists question Gore’s behavior when supposedly nothing less than the survival of humanity (or at least polar bears) is at stake? I believe this question deserves multiple articles on the same blog, and perhaps even a monthly feature, but that is up to the moderator.