WileyCoyote
03-03-2007, 11:05 PM
A few nights ago, Hannity and Colmes discussed the alleged hypocrisy of Al Gore, based on the fact that he uses a large amount of energy while preaching about the dangers of Global Warning. Hannity even did a whole show about Gore using private jets and, while vice president, Air Force II.
OK, I agree that it appears that Gore is, indeed a hypocrite. Though I can argue that virtually everyone else who has held a high public office and/or spent lots of time and energy trying to further an ideology, good or bad, uses private jets and allows themselves certain luxuries, Gore falls far short of the sincere and dedicated discipline that Ghandi, for example, practiced. In other words, Gore is not a very inspiring hero.
However, whether or not Gore is a hypocrite is pretty much irrelevant to the debate about whether or not Global Warming exists and whether we can can do anything about it. It's not even really relevant whether it is caused by humans of whether we are bad for causing it; If we can heal it, then we must. Saying it's not our fault or that it's unfair that it's happening won't make us feel any better if our coastlines are destroyed by tidal waves or worse.
Strangely enough, I agree with O'Reilly, who says it can't hurt to clean up the environment, whether or not the threat is as bad as some claim it is. Hannity and other knee-jerk conservatives seem to want to quash debate by pointing the finger at Gore. Hannity even has the chutzpah to accuse environmentalists of "fear-mongering". That would be as opposed to using the alleged threat of Saddam's WMDs to justify a major war, infringe on civil rights as defined by the Constitution, cost the U.S. billions (or is it trillions) of dollars, etc.
Hannity is a knee-jerk conservative, using skewed logic to defend his side, self-righteously attacking opponents on moral grounds, rather than logic, or, God forbid, allowing that someone can disagree without being evil or stupid. This is annoying, just as it is when knee-jerk liberals act in a similar matter. But he appears to be a saint when contrasted with the vile, dishonest Ann Coulter. She had the temerity to suggest that Daryl Hannah, who was a guest on the show, was a evil traitor for being so stupid as to live by her principles by using solar energy and other profound means to practice what she preaches.
Coulter and Hannity were proud of the alleged fact that their philosophy does not require sacrifice. Except of course for the soldiers who are sacrificing in Iraq. And if sacrifice were so bogus, then how do they reconcile the sacrifice of their messiah, of which they are so proud, the main thing that they seem to think makes them superior to the nutty Left? That's a rhetorical question. BTW, using nasty tricks such as attacking the messenger to prevent debate about an issue as important as Global Warming is not patriotic. Nor is it Christian.
OK, I agree that it appears that Gore is, indeed a hypocrite. Though I can argue that virtually everyone else who has held a high public office and/or spent lots of time and energy trying to further an ideology, good or bad, uses private jets and allows themselves certain luxuries, Gore falls far short of the sincere and dedicated discipline that Ghandi, for example, practiced. In other words, Gore is not a very inspiring hero.
However, whether or not Gore is a hypocrite is pretty much irrelevant to the debate about whether or not Global Warming exists and whether we can can do anything about it. It's not even really relevant whether it is caused by humans of whether we are bad for causing it; If we can heal it, then we must. Saying it's not our fault or that it's unfair that it's happening won't make us feel any better if our coastlines are destroyed by tidal waves or worse.
Strangely enough, I agree with O'Reilly, who says it can't hurt to clean up the environment, whether or not the threat is as bad as some claim it is. Hannity and other knee-jerk conservatives seem to want to quash debate by pointing the finger at Gore. Hannity even has the chutzpah to accuse environmentalists of "fear-mongering". That would be as opposed to using the alleged threat of Saddam's WMDs to justify a major war, infringe on civil rights as defined by the Constitution, cost the U.S. billions (or is it trillions) of dollars, etc.
Hannity is a knee-jerk conservative, using skewed logic to defend his side, self-righteously attacking opponents on moral grounds, rather than logic, or, God forbid, allowing that someone can disagree without being evil or stupid. This is annoying, just as it is when knee-jerk liberals act in a similar matter. But he appears to be a saint when contrasted with the vile, dishonest Ann Coulter. She had the temerity to suggest that Daryl Hannah, who was a guest on the show, was a evil traitor for being so stupid as to live by her principles by using solar energy and other profound means to practice what she preaches.
Coulter and Hannity were proud of the alleged fact that their philosophy does not require sacrifice. Except of course for the soldiers who are sacrificing in Iraq. And if sacrifice were so bogus, then how do they reconcile the sacrifice of their messiah, of which they are so proud, the main thing that they seem to think makes them superior to the nutty Left? That's a rhetorical question. BTW, using nasty tricks such as attacking the messenger to prevent debate about an issue as important as Global Warming is not patriotic. Nor is it Christian.