With apologies to Skay-gulls, I had missed that.

I am also amused about how something is "X-bashing" if it goes against one's leaning. The truth can hurt.

To use a quote that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the original post as some sort of diversionary tactic is completey ridiculous. The OP had nothing to do with Bush, nothing to do with a war (be it Iraq or Vietnam) yet you chose to post this?!?

Sorry, but this is a non-sequitur and not worthy of even being in this thread.

Yeah, I didn't read the whole article, but that is the conclusion to draw on the quote. No mention how energy efficient the households are, energy efficient appliances? Compact florescents? Insulation? Yeah he's got a big home, but isn't that a nescesity as a politician?

As for the green utility option, I'm surprised to see they are still available out there. It was a nice idea in the dereg world, but with the energy markets the "green" utilities often resold non-green power. The Gore Household(s) probably maek a bigger difference in thier conservation methods than who they pay thier power for.

I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth last week.

I'm not entirely on board with the degree to which the biggest chicken littles claim that global warming is man-caused and therefore man-fixable.

That said, the movie is very well made and makes a reasonable case for its view of things. Much of the criticism I have seen of the movie turned out to be unfounded (Gore is clear in stating that projections are projections and worst case ones at that; he never says that the Chinese are better on the environment than us but rather better on a very specific policy issue).

The truthfulness of his message is in no way impacted by his personal actions. If he condemns murder and then murders someone, it does not contradict the original condemnation.

That said, he does open himself up to personal ridicule when he encourages people to make specific personal decisions but does not do so himself. At the end of the movie he makes a bunch of "think global, act local" changes and switching to green power from your utillity companies is one of them. So it does seem bizarre that he wouldn't have done this himself.

He also, for the most part, removes the question of government mandate from the discussion and frames the question of whether we should reduce our carbon footprints as a personal moral decision. And it is clear what he considers the moral side to choose.

So, I think it is valid to point out that by his own definition Al Gore may be acting immorally. However, this has zero impact on whether his evaluation of what is moral is correct. The Christian Bible contains a similar sentiment in that none of us is perfect and we all sin, even those we look to to delineate the proper sin-free life.

Just curious...Do you find the hypocracy of the current administration to be as amusing or merely inconvenient?

Say, for example, when they are quietly trying to divert homeland security funds while telling us that they are doing everything in their power to keep us safe.

I frequently hear supporters say that while they don't agree with everything Bush has done, overall they still feel his intentions are good even if he hasn't always made the best decisions. Why, I wonder, is the same courtesy not extended to Al Gore?

Except that it exposes a double-standard.

I think that Euromeinke asks excellent questions that were never for a moment considered when that article was written. Of course, a balanced article would have defeated the purpose which was simply to bash Al Gore.

It sounds like there is more questions about the Gore household then there are answers provided in the OPs quoted article.

In what way? The article says nothing about how Bush or the current administration does anything better or worse. It makes no references to Conservatives or Liberals. It simply says that there is prevalent and credible evidence that a man who has chosen to use his name to promote a (worthy) cause does not practice what he preaches.

Bringing the Bush administration into this makes about as much sense as bitching about the effect that the Pressler/Harriss era had on Disneyland. Sure, it is a painful ugly detail, but totally irrelevant to the topic.

The cause of environmentalism is a worthy action that the world does need to pay more attention to - never once does the article say otherwise. What it DOES point out is that Al Gore, the individual, is hypocritical on what he says. He is making a large campaign out of this issue and yet does not practice what he preaches. So, yes; that makes him a hypocrit.
___________________________________________
ETA (to avoid multiple consecutive posts): The article is not a blind attack piece; it is legitimately calling into question the credibility of the cheerleader of the cause. For those who didn't read the whole article (yet called into question the point of the worthiness of the point made):

Please don't label me a liberal. In fact, please don't label me. We don't need to make it personal.

I called it "liberal bashing" because the author of the article that so amused you is the author of "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy". He's a fellow of the Hoover Institution. He has an agenda, and it's as valid to point it out as anything else in this thread.

No, it points out that the author of the article is quick to call Gore a hypocrite without further investigating what the reasons are that he has made the personal choices he has made. It is the author I am questioning here as much as Gore.