Hypocrites ‘R Us

Check out Al Gore’s fourth luxury home.

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal… The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Oh, and let’s not forget Sting.

That’s the same guy who sang:

We can’t live here and be happy with less
With so many riches, so many souls
Everything we see that we want to possess

He’s a tremendous talent but he really needs to zip it. I don’t need a guy with 7 homes and a full time house staff of six telling me how to protect the earth.

Should we be good stewards of the planet?  Of course.

Should we trust phonies like these and let them take over the world’s economy?  Don’t be suckers.  The only man-made parts of global warming are the hypocritical deceptions perpetrated by those who profit from the scam.

0 thoughts on “Hypocrites ‘R Us”

    1. I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly see this hypocrisy. The main point I’d like to make is that a few greedy people do not diminish the message.

      It’s not only that we should get by with less, it’s that I think we’d be happier that way. When did conservation and simplicity become a “left wing” idea?


      1. I’m all for simplicity and conservation. I am not just to live within my means but below them.

        The Left part of the idea is having the expanded, job & wealth destroying gov’t control, the manipulation of kids with error-ridden propaganda such as “The Inconvenient Truth” and the faked data. And the hypocrisy.


      2. Ryan,
        I agree about conservation and simplicity. What I don’t agree with is forced conservation and forced simplicity. That seems to be where the Left is most wrong in its actions. The Left want to use policies that force all of us into a life of simplicity. That should be our choice, not the government’s or Al Gore’s choice.


  1. Not a fan of ad hominem arguments as a way of refuting the underlying idea, but it’s so ridiculous of Al Gore to lecture the rest of us about riding the train when he obviously isn’t that worried about the effect of man’s opulent lifestyle on the planet. We can certainly doubt his sincerity on this issue.


    1. Agreed on the ad homs. I view this in two parts: 1) They don’t have the facts. 2) The hypocrites should shut up even if the facts were true.


  2. I see reports of these amounts of money being spent in gratuitous ways, and my first thought is, “How many people could we feed, clothe, and house with those funds?”

    I too am guilty of excess (albeit on a smaller scale) and I am trying very hard to be a better steward. It’s sickening to see millions of dollars being frittered away like this, but perhaps it’s also sickening to see $5.00 frittered away when it could buy a hungry person a meal.


    1. The issue is that money is not a zero-sum game. If your motivation for working extra hours, or getting more education, is to be more comfortable in life, then you’re going to have more money than you otherwise would – and if you were too self-sacrificing, you might make a lot less money because you would just be at the end of your rope. (My test: “Would I buy this if I were flat broke?” If no, “Am I buying this because it makes my 13-hour day a lot easier to handle, and is it more than offset by what I earn by working more hours?”. )

      Likewise, the money that you spend on a sandwich at a store pays the salaries of people who probably really need that job – everyone from the cashiers who are working their way through college to the line cooks who are trying to pay rent on $8/hour, which is better than trying to pay rent at $0/hour.

      I’m not trying to rationalise anything, but would like to point out that America has created more prosperity and wealth than at any other time in human history… and I always get leery when people start thinking of money as a zero-sum game.


      1. I agree with what Roxanne is saying regarding money not being a zero-sum game. I also agree with living within one’s means (which I think is the same as living below it).

        But I disagree with the notion of purposely living with less. I don’t think we are supposed to purposely impoverish ourselves as Christians, and I think God delights in the successes of His children. Why wouldn’t He? He provides the opportunities, doesn’t He? Though temptations abound, I don’t in the least believe it is impossible to aquire great wealth while maintaining the proper Christian attitude. (I would certainly like to be able to prove it someday.) As Roxanne indicates with her sandwich example, wealth begets wealth. Trickle down does occur when another person reaches Wealthy status.

        The problem is when people expect trickle down to result in unearned income, or an automatic raise in pay. I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to work. Trickle down theory simply means that more opportunity is available, but someone has to take advantage of it. The new wealthy guy will spread his wealth around simply by virtue of the fact that he will spend more because he has it, and will spend on more expensive things. The spending (and investing) will benefit others who provide the products or services being paid for by the new wealthy guy.

        I think it benefits more people as any individual rises to a higher tax bracket. Thus, more people should seek to aquire more wealth, not for wealth’s sake per se, but because it helps others. It also helps by virtue of the fact that the wealthier one is, the less financial help he needs from others. Financially he can weather most anything.

        And of course, the wealthier one is, the more charitable one can be. I know of one blogger, who’ll remain nameless here, who constantly speaks of living a simple life, yet whines about how more should be done for the poor. Such people need to get on the stick and make more money. I resent their preaching while they do little to increase their own ability to give.


      2. I think we have a different meaning of “living with less”, and I admit that your interpretation is probably closer to a literal definition.

        When I think about living with less, I think about walking to the store with my family instead of driving. This has the effect of giving us more time together, as well as costing me less, which can eventually translate into working less, and giving me even more time with my family.

        I also think of things like growing my own food, riding my bike to work, and not paying for cable in the summer. All of these things can be considered “living with less” but end up making my life more enjoyable.

        Too many people are far too concerned with maximizing their earning potential.

        This idea that more wealthy people translates into better lives for the poorer people sounds like pyramid marking to me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s