Comments on: President Bush, In the Closet? Al Gore, A Hypocrite? http://jenny-and-erin.com/2007/03/president-bush-in-the-closet-al-gore-a-hypocrite/ a tongue-in-cheek quest for understanding... Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:18:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Erin http://jenny-and-erin.com/2007/03/president-bush-in-the-closet-al-gore-a-hypocrite/#comment-18 Erin Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:26:10 +0000 http://jenny-and-erin.com/2007/03/president-bush-in-the-closet-al-gore-a-hypocrite/#comment-18 Jon, You make some very good points. I too was hesitant to initially cry blasphemy on Al Gore and praise President Bush. However you posed the question which is better - to walk the walk and talk the talk. We have two individuals here; one chosing to talk, but not walk and another who walks, but does not talk. (Stay with me here). Although Gore has made an impacting movie, it is difficult to believe in his battle cry when he refuses to take action in his own life. Thus, drastically weakening any argument he poses. By how much? I can't say. I do stick by my argument that his movie is largely preaching to the choir. Come on, be honest, you're standing in Blockbuster, not sympathetic the the environmental movement and you have to decide between some action-packed shoot-em up movie or a preachy environmental movie. How many people would really want to spend their Saturday evening watching an individual tell you we are destroying the world? On the other hand, President Bush has chosen to implement environmental decisions in his personal life. I disagree that the adaptations to his home were simply for convenience. If his decisions were truly for convenience sake, wouldn't everyone be doing it? So what is truly behind his decision? Remember the old addage - "Actions speak louder than words."? I think we have a perfect example here. This does pose another interesting question though: Who is the hypocrite? Both, neither, only one? What does it mean to be a hypocrite and are we actually in a position to judge? Jon,
You make some very good points. I too was hesitant to initially cry blasphemy on Al Gore and praise President Bush. However you posed the question which is better - to walk the walk and talk the talk. We have two individuals here; one chosing to talk, but not walk and another who walks, but does not talk. (Stay with me here).

Although Gore has made an impacting movie, it is difficult to believe in his battle cry when he refuses to take action in his own life. Thus, drastically weakening any argument he poses. By how much? I can’t say. I do stick by my argument that his movie is largely preaching to the choir. Come on, be honest, you’re standing in Blockbuster, not sympathetic the the environmental movement and you have to decide between some action-packed shoot-em up movie or a preachy environmental movie. How many people would really want to spend their Saturday evening watching an individual tell you we are destroying the world?

On the other hand, President Bush has chosen to implement environmental decisions in his personal life. I disagree that the adaptations to his home were simply for convenience. If his decisions were truly for convenience sake, wouldn’t everyone be doing it? So what is truly behind his decision?

Remember the old addage - “Actions speak louder than words.”? I think we have a perfect example here.

This does pose another interesting question though: Who is the hypocrite? Both, neither, only one? What does it mean to be a hypocrite and are we actually in a position to judge?

]]> By: Jon http://jenny-and-erin.com/2007/03/president-bush-in-the-closet-al-gore-a-hypocrite/#comment-17 Jon Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:15:34 +0000 http://jenny-and-erin.com/2007/03/president-bush-in-the-closet-al-gore-a-hypocrite/#comment-17 This article poses a thought provoking question of whether or not the appearance or the action is what is truly important. You say that Al Gore has made a film that appealed to many environmentalist converts who were already committed to his outlined goal and while initially I would have agreed with your point, I now believe that the widespread success of his film and the Oscar have generated a larger amount of buzz for a documentary and that now many people will see the film out of curiosity who would have otherwise been unaware of the film's existence. Therefore perhaps providing a catalyst to further publicize the environmental movement.However, your counterpoint of the fact that Gore has been committed to this cause for six years and has done little to correct his own environmental damage does lessen his message and also lessens the impact that this film may have had. As for George W. Bush I would be hesitant to jump on his environmental bandwagon too soon. I think what you really have to look at is why have these adaptations been added to his Texas home? Was it out of his secret and deep felt love for the environment or was it instead out of convenience and simplicity that these systems added to the house. I am not saying that perhaps as you state his position is purely one taken for the pacification of his constituents, but I would say that we should tread slowly and carefully towards what could be a new image of one of the least environmentally concerned presidencies in decades. So back to the original question, is it better to walk the walk or talk the talk? I guess only time will tell. This article poses a thought provoking question of whether or not the appearance or the action is what is truly important. You say that Al Gore has made a film that appealed to many environmentalist converts who were already committed to his outlined goal and while initially I would have agreed with your point, I now believe that the widespread success of his film and the Oscar have generated a larger amount of buzz for a documentary and that now many people will see the film out of curiosity who would have otherwise been unaware of the film’s existence. Therefore perhaps providing a catalyst to further publicize the environmental movement.However, your counterpoint of the fact that Gore has been committed to this cause for six years and has done little to correct his own environmental damage does lessen his message and also lessens the impact that this film may have had.

As for George W. Bush I would be hesitant to jump on his environmental bandwagon too soon. I think what you really have to look at is why have these adaptations been added to his Texas home? Was it out of his secret and deep felt love for the environment or was it instead out of convenience and simplicity that these systems added to the house. I am not saying that perhaps as you state his position is purely one taken for the pacification of his constituents, but I would say that we should tread slowly and carefully towards what could be a new image of one of the least environmentally concerned presidencies in decades.

So back to the original question, is it better to walk the walk or talk the talk? I guess only time will tell.

]]>