Moral issues? What do they have to do with religion?

[two can leave the door open, huh]

Were me & my fellow Christians to have such dogma towards the religion that we profess, no doubt God would be much more pleased with his creation. [I just couldn't resist this, smijer, so please give me some leeway. That door was so wide open......]

I love you, but come on. Do I get to use that sort of stretch should I call for legislation that outlaws the usage of the words “a”, “an” or “the” on public television & then declare that it’d affect me too if I eventually purchased a television network or were currently a stockholder in a show?

Ummm.. yeah… I mean - I’m not big on the FCC, but I won’t make a big deal about it if someone at the FCC who says “ban the f- word” uses the f-word in his private life. Now, if the guy has a t.v. station and uses the f-word all the time on it, then asks for the FCC rule to ban it, I’ll have questions - but even then, unless he tries to exempt his own t.v. station from the rule, I’m going to assume that he is just doing what he has to do to survive in the current (hypothetical) unregulated market.

It’s the same way for any kind of regulation. Should delta have to install steel cockpit doors in all of its planes before they ask for a regulation requiring steel cockpit doors? Should I, as a private citizen, have to install steel doors in my house before I can ask for such a rule?

So, his lifestyle trumps the “moral issue”.

I didn’t bring up his lifestyle. Snooks did.

We’re supposed to change our lifestyles, but not those preaching the religion the loudest?

No, the way I understand it, everyone should reduce energy usage where they can, and try to offset as much as they can afford to of the rest. That’s what Al Gore is doing, and what he says we all ought to do. That’s pretty simple. He’s not asking anyone to go paleolithic. He’s asking people to take their current lifestyle and turn it into a more energy-friendly one. He’s asking those who can afford it to purchase offsets for what they cannot reduce. That’s what he’s doing.

And the fact is that there is a moral issue. That moral issue translates into a personal issue about one’s own lifestyle, but it translates a lot more directly into a political issue, since we are impacting the environment as a society, and can only reduce that impact as a society.

It’s not a fake “moral” issue like keeping the moral foot on the backs of gay people to keep them down. It’s a lot closer to the question of abortion, which is - no matter what your perspective, choice or life, a question to which one’s moral perspective will impact the answer. Does the life of a fetus trump the right of a woman to reproductive freedom and sovereignty over her own body? Does the life of our progeny trump the right of a corporation to pollute freely? I don’t see why is should be inconsistent to answer “no” to the first, and “yes” to the second. Even if you disagree about that set of answers, I don’t see how someone’s answer to the first one can make you angry about their answer to the second one…

Of course he also advocates for government regulation of businesses that produce carbon emissions. And of course, any business he is in will have to conform to the same standards, and the ones he purchases from will have to conform to the same standards, too. So, again, he isn’t asking for any regulation that won’t affect him just as much or as little as it does everyone else.

I love you, but come on. Do I get to use that sort of stretch should I call for legislation that outlaws the usage of the words “a”, “an” or “the” on public television & then declare that it’d affect me too if I eventually purchased a television network or were currently a stockholder in a show? The guy is calling for all of us to lower our energy usage, yet he’s getting a complete pass on how much he uses.

…is not equivalent to knowing anything about his lifestyle

So, his lifestyle trumps the “moral issue”. We’re supposed to change our lifestyles, but not those preaching the religion the loudest? Maybe we can get a list of folks get a free pass on following the testament-according-to-global-warming so that the rest of us heathens can know if we’re one of the chosen few? So far, from what I understand, you’re okay if you’re a Democrat and support the correct legislation OR if you’re rich enough to purchase offsets (cough, scam, cough). You don’t have to do a darn thing, really, if you’re in that select group. The rest of us peons, however…..grab your wallet.

His usage was fairly well reported several weeks back. Decent sized story.

From what I read, it was reported by an advocacy group in Tennessee, who wasn’t very clear about where they got it, and there are questions about its accuracy… But even the Gores admit that their usage is higher than average for their area - in part because they have a large home, and in part because both of them use the home as an office. The point is that knowing a number reported as power usage - whether or not that number is entirely correct - is not equivalent to knowing anything about his lifestyle. He’s a public figure, so his lifestyle is somewhat more accessible to people who don’t know him than someone who never served as Vice President, for instance… but whatever Snooks may know or think he/she knows about his lifestyle is almost certainly second-hand.

And again - the point isn’t that he/she is marching in lock-step - the point is that my criticisms are not against him/her, but against the people that he/she is listening to. So, when I say that the argument is without merit, hopefully he/she will feel animus toward the people who passed it off on him/her, rather than toward me for attacking it.

He’s wanting the government to mandate what people are able to do. Let’s be clear. Pushing for people to use a certain type of lightbulb is one thing (akin to my peeing into the Atlantic & expecting it to pollute the ocean, but that’s an aside)….wanting the gov’t to step in with what is most certainly the real goal: energy rationing; is another.

True - I was talking about the perceived disconnect between what he was asking private citizens like himself to do, and what he does himself. Of course he also advocates for government regulation of businesses that produce carbon emissions. And of course, any business he is in will have to conform to the same standards, and the ones he purchases from will have to conform to the same standards, too. So, again, he isn’t asking for any regulation that won’t affect him just as much or as little as it does everyone else.

Now, I don’t deny that the logical angle is better if you are just criticizing Al Gore for hypocrisy, rather than what Snooks was doing, which was hanging a decision about the merits of the case on Al Gore’s pecadilloes. There may be merit to a criticism of Al Gore the person based on this perceived hypocrisy (though I don’t think so - as I have explained)… I won’t deny that.

And, I won’t deny that might figure into how you might react to certain policy proposals in reaction to global warming. That’s part of the political debate. And, as I said in this post… let the political debate commence. I’m more steamed about the prevarication going on about the scientific debate.

Because it defies credibility that anyone who knows Al Gore personally - enough to have firsthand knowledge of his lifestyle - would be commenting on my blog

His usage was fairly well reported several weeks back. Decent sized story. One needn’t assume that someone is marching in lockstep if they disagreed with Gore’s obvious hypocrisy.

Maybe I’m just being too generous.

The notion that Al Gore is asking others to do anything that he himself is not doing is false. I don’t know how it gets any simpler.

Asking? When did this become a component of choice? He’s wanting the government to mandate what people are able to do. Let’s be clear. Pushing for people to use a certain type of lightbulb is one thing (akin to my peeing into the Atlantic & expecting it to pollute the ocean, but that’s an aside)….wanting the gov’t to step in with what is most certainly the real goal: energy rationing; is another. Hey, I’m all for Gore & co. leading a campaign to have everyone help the enviro by watching what they do. 100% behind it. It doesn’t stop there, however, again, his home power bill shows us how much he’s changing his life. He’s just been given a virtual pass because he’s on the “right side” and he’s able to use his millions to buy stuff that you & I can’t afford to buy. And all the while I’m supposed to feel bad because my wife drives an SUV (I’m not part of the moral equation).

And I’ll note that I’m not a Gore hater. He’s a good guy & anyone who can stay married for that long & have no personal scandals is a standup fellow in my book. That said, he’s a fricking politician pushing a political issue & calling it a moral issue. I didn’t see any follow-up to that: how do you feel about a politician telling you when legislation is moral?

BTW, I’ve decided not to buy a new A/C unit for my basement, so I delcare that it offsets my choice to BBQ on my deck throughout the summer. To do otherwise wouldn’t be MORAL, after all (sorry if I seem a bit a-hole-ish, but no pol…left or right…is going to attempt to tell me what actions of mine are moral. Especially coming from someone whose administration vetoed a partial birth abortion ban, for goodness sakes. Back then, the gov’t couldn’t decide against the choice of a person. Now, when it comes to my lightbulbs, it’s ‘moral’. Sheesh.

You know that….how?

Because it defies credibility that anyone who knows Al Gore personally - enough to have firsthand knowledge of his lifestyle - would be commenting on my blog… whereas rumors about his lifestyle and how it supposedly proves the earth isn’t warming circulate daily on right-wing blogs. It doesn’t take a genius to figure which way Snooks got the idea. And the reason I pointed it out was to be clear that I wasn’t criticizing Snooks, but instead the people he/she was listening to.

Look, Al Gore is seeking for the government to mandate that we all change our lifestyle and he’s saying that it’s a ‘moral issue’ for us to change our lifestyles. Pointing out that he’s a proverbial preacher who has a mistress on the side while he’s giving a sermon on infidelity is not exactly a stretch. Buzz words: moral. Issue.

Ok… and Al Gore is doing what he asks others to do: making smart changes in his lifestyle to reduce our energy use without changing his day-to-day life, and buying carbon offsets (certified by carbonfund to be spent on reducing carbon emissions) to further reduce his carbon footprint. As I said, you may not like or understand the way Al Gore has changed his lifestyle, but the notion that he has not changed it is a false one. The notion, as it was relayed to Snooks, that this has some impact on the reality of global warming is also false. The notion that Al Gore is asking others to do anything that he himself is not doing is false. I don’t know how it gets any simpler.