Hypocrisy, Truth, and Celebrity
Andy said: I believe people who are being hypocritical are shirking their responsibilities as stewards of the environment... Talk is cheap.
I agree with you on both points.
I'm not afraid of the word conservation. I get made fun everyday from people at work because I obey all posted speed limits, make sure my tires are properly inflated, etc. I just "practice what I preach," and so do other conservatives I know.
Please understand that I said 'many' conservatives. I think that's awesome that you practice what you preach. Too bad most folks don't. It just seems that many self-professed conservatives react to the word 'conservation' like Dracula reacts to garlic.
If anybody should be trying to conserve our natural resources and preserve the environment for future generations, it should be the people calling themselves 'conservative.' Personally, I think many folks mistakenly call themselves conservatives instead of what they really are — conservation-oblivious capitalists.
And to reinterate, guys like Maher are total hypocrites if they only talk the talk. It certainly seems that he does. But that doesn't mean that a lot of what he is saying is true. 'Conservative' writers like Schlussel know that, so in order to belittle a cause not in the best interest of the narrow purpose she serves, she instead attacks an easy and hypocritical target.
Steve said: Your assessment of her as lame is simply based on the fact that she was flaying a member of a class of people you hold (for unfathomable reasons) in high regard. Furthermore, you are threatened by the fact that in exposing the hypocrisy of the icons of celebrity environmentalism, that some of the underlying "truths" of what they preach will be exposed as false, or at least placed in grave doubt.
What class of people is that? Rich? Hypocritical? Oh, okay. Famous.
Well, Maher is famous and so is Schlussel. They're the equivalent of Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf from the Warner Bros. cartoon series. They're paid to fight each other on TV and in the media, making great dough for picking a side. (And beware of any person who is always firmly on one side of anything in the media... they're usually full of it and always paid to say it. I digress.) At the end of the day, they walk off together. It's like WWF wrestling. They both do what they do for the money and fame, and would probably trade their 'integrity' at any moment to keep their celebrity. I mean, she used to be a regular guest on his show! They probably went out for $4 lattes — well, most likely $15 cocktails — after tapings.
My views may be supported by one hypocrite, but your views are supported by another. And those two hang out together and laugh about it.
My whole point is this kind of sad, cartoon-esque BS masks and/or is used to attack noble causes such as environmental conservation. If you can't see that in the Schlussel column, consider yourself one of the fooled.
I agree with you on both points.
I'm not afraid of the word conservation. I get made fun everyday from people at work because I obey all posted speed limits, make sure my tires are properly inflated, etc. I just "practice what I preach," and so do other conservatives I know.
Please understand that I said 'many' conservatives. I think that's awesome that you practice what you preach. Too bad most folks don't. It just seems that many self-professed conservatives react to the word 'conservation' like Dracula reacts to garlic.
If anybody should be trying to conserve our natural resources and preserve the environment for future generations, it should be the people calling themselves 'conservative.' Personally, I think many folks mistakenly call themselves conservatives instead of what they really are — conservation-oblivious capitalists.
And to reinterate, guys like Maher are total hypocrites if they only talk the talk. It certainly seems that he does. But that doesn't mean that a lot of what he is saying is true. 'Conservative' writers like Schlussel know that, so in order to belittle a cause not in the best interest of the narrow purpose she serves, she instead attacks an easy and hypocritical target.
Steve said: Your assessment of her as lame is simply based on the fact that she was flaying a member of a class of people you hold (for unfathomable reasons) in high regard. Furthermore, you are threatened by the fact that in exposing the hypocrisy of the icons of celebrity environmentalism, that some of the underlying "truths" of what they preach will be exposed as false, or at least placed in grave doubt.
What class of people is that? Rich? Hypocritical? Oh, okay. Famous.
Well, Maher is famous and so is Schlussel. They're the equivalent of Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf from the Warner Bros. cartoon series. They're paid to fight each other on TV and in the media, making great dough for picking a side. (And beware of any person who is always firmly on one side of anything in the media... they're usually full of it and always paid to say it. I digress.) At the end of the day, they walk off together. It's like WWF wrestling. They both do what they do for the money and fame, and would probably trade their 'integrity' at any moment to keep their celebrity. I mean, she used to be a regular guest on his show! They probably went out for $4 lattes — well, most likely $15 cocktails — after tapings.
My views may be supported by one hypocrite, but your views are supported by another. And those two hang out together and laugh about it.
My whole point is this kind of sad, cartoon-esque BS masks and/or is used to attack noble causes such as environmental conservation. If you can't see that in the Schlussel column, consider yourself one of the fooled.
posted by Strother | 10:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home