February 7, 2007

But does it contribute to global warming?

Nancy Pelosi has been given access to an Air Force passenger jet, but it seems she wants an even larger one.

62 comments:

MadisonMan said...

This story has been debunked as an overblown partisan tempest in a teapot. Yes, Nancy needs a larger jet than Hastert did. She has to fly farther, and the jet Hastert used for flights to Illinois couldn't make it non-stop to California.

Odd that the Washington Times keeps grinding on it.

Simon said...

http://stubbornfacts.us/domestic_policy/environment/join_the_dots_pelosi_one

"Last week, Pelosi asked to use the jet to fly roughly 150 miles from Washington DC to Williamsburg, Virginia for the Democrat retreat. Her request was denied."

Recall Glenn Reynolds observations about private jets and carbon footprints, consider the scope of the demands of the environmental movement, and keep foremost in your mind: when Hillary says that "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," the emphasis is on you, which is to say: they're going to take things away from us, but they fully intend on keeping the same things for themselves.

tcd said...

Really, professor, don't you know there is good carbon emission and bad carbon emission? Good when it's a liberal Democrat or a developing third-world country creating it and bad when it's a conservative or the US creating it. Kinda like HDL and LDL cholesterol.
Don't forget MM, Nancy wants the jet at her disposal for personal use, too. I guess we should just STFU and think of it as a company car?

Mark the Pundit said...

Apparently she wanted it available to her staff too.

But is ordering the Air Force to fly her chief of staff across country to keep an appointment at the day spa really necessary?

MadisonMan said...

Denny Hastert never used the jet for personal reasons. GWB never uses AF1 to go to a campaign event. Cheney wouldn't think of using AF2 for something like that. Perish the thought that these frugal Republicans wouldn't look out for our money!

Bissage said...

Passenger jet? H*ll, they should figure out how to squeeze her into one of these babies. I mean, what if she needs an emergency face lift or something? “You there, Fly Boy, get me to Hollywood, NOW!!!”

Naked Lunch said...

MM,

Pelosi is a dirty liberal. She should really walk. It's the Moonie Times, what did you expect? This is the same rag that prints Obama/Madrassa smears, remember. Or at least their sister rag.

Simon said...

MadisonMan,
I have no particular beef with the Speaker (this or any other) using private air travel (for official business, at least, although I would have some beef with a Speaker using it for personal business), but Pelosi can't have it both ways: you can't be against abuse of privileges and demand to be flown around by the air force when commercial travel is available, and most of all, you can't be an environmentalist who wants to place grim restrictions on what people can and can't do in their lives that generates a carbon footprint and use private air travel. It would be hypocrisy if she just preached environmentalism, but it is all the worse since she wants to impose her views on everyone except her, her caucus and her staff by force of law!

It's not the jet, it's not even the arrogance of demanding it, it's the hypocrisy.

Beth said...

Jesus, Althouse, the Washington Times? Maybe the Enquirer has something on Pelosi and her Alien lover.

F$&*(ing Democrats. They're coming to the door to take our guns and limousines away.

Sloanasaurus said...

The era of Pelosi's abuse of power has already begun.

Tim said...

The Air Force should only give her what they gave Hastert; the issue of whether the plane is large enough to fly non-stop to San Francisco is immaterial; the plane belongs to the taxpayers and as such, should not be used by Grandmama Pelosi for persona use, or to reward contributors.

MadisonMan said...

Should the Speaker, 2nd in line to the Presidency, fly commercial?

Tech note: Finally! Tabbing takes me from Username to Password! Hallelujah! (But I still had to enter two different vws)

SteveR said...

I personally don't care if they "abuse" the privilege. Just don't tell me to sacrifice, or make me sacrifice.

And if you are going to make snide remarks about the Wash Times, try telling me that the NYT, Newsweek, etc etc are so much better. We are all intelligent here and there are agendas all over the place. Stop wasting time pretending your POV is above the fray.

Simon said...

MadisonMan - She can have the jet! But since there's no particularly strong reason why she should use it (the Speaker of the House, an officer of one chamber of Congress is very different to the President, in whom is personally vested the executive power), she just has to give up her pretensions about being an environmentalist. It's the hypocrisy, stoopid.

Hey said...

The executive has some claim to the use of jets, especially given their security needs. The legislature needs to maintain its separation and independence from the Executive and should thus be completely independent from all aspects of that branch. That's the point of the Capitol Police, Congressional control of D.C., the CBO, etc.

No legislator should be allowed on any conveyance of the Executive, as it creates an appearance of a lack of independence. If Congress wants the Speaker to have a jet, than Congress should buy and staff its own plane(s), not intimidating the Air Force into providing access. It was just as wrong and unjust for Hastert to have access as it is for Pelosi, but she claimed that she was going to be less corrupt. So let's have Pelosi take the lead for actual Constitutional integrity.

Beth said...

Sure, Steve. The NYT and Newsweek are all better than the Rev. Moon's propaganda machine. I have no trouble telling you that. You should have no trouble observing it for yourself.

I eagerly await news that our First Among Equals will be mountain biking to Camp David, or at least taking a motorcade. He's burning up a lotta jet fuel for a short little jaunt.

Naked Lunch said...

No legislator should be allowed on any conveyance of the Executive, as it creates an appearance of a lack of independence. If Congress wants the Speaker to have a jet, than Congress should buy and staff its own plane(s), not intimidating the Air Force into providing access.

Except the fact this never happened. Pelosi didn't initiate the request for military planes. The House Sergeant at Arms did. Well here:

STATEMENT BY SERGEANT AT ARMS

In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.

I told Speaker Pelosi that Speaker Hastert used the Air Force plane for travel to and from his district, however, I was uncertain of the rules and guidelines governing use of the plane. I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines.

Subsequently, several members of the Speaker’s staff and members of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms met with representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Air Force liaison office to discuss the rules and guidelines which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane. Several questions were posed to the Air Force and we are awaiting a response.

SteveR said...

Thanks for making my point Beth. BTW don't tell me what to observe.

Simon said...

Beth said...
"I eagerly await news that our First Among Equals will be mountain biking to Camp David, or at least taking a motorcade. He's burning up a lotta jet fuel for a short little jaunt."

The difference, Beth, is that Bush doesn't make claims to be an environmentalist, and isn't trying to push legislation that will circumscribe the rights of normal people to make far smaller carbon footprints than the service Pelosi is demanding will generate. Pelosi can have her cake, she just can't eat it too.

MadisonMan said...

than the service Pelosi is demanding

But is she demanding it? That's the question, isn't it? According to the Washington Times, perhaps, and the Republican follow-along spinmeisters. But what's the real story?

Cat said...

I don't think Hastert or Pelosi should have had access to an AF jet.

Can someone tell me why the Speaker's security is so important? I know that it's 3rd in line, but if the Speaker is on a commercial jet and it gets blown up or she is somehow injured in some flight dustup, wouldn't the house majority just nominate someone else? I don't see it why it's necessary to spend $300,000 (from what I've read for this type of plane, fuel, etc. - I know from booking non-mil private planes that a round trip flight can be as much as $50,000 for a small jet like a G2 or Citation 10 without all of the staffing) for the flight to California for someone who could be replaced by their congressional peers in hours. I know that the Speaker is 3rd in line, but she is "elected" to Speaker by her peers, not the populace. It's not the same thing as the President or VP.

MM- it is hypocritical of her environmental stance and her pledge against waste. I don't know why you are so sensitive about this.

MadisonMan said...

MM- it is hypocritical of her environmental stance and her pledge against waste.

See above. If she demanded it. It would be great if she turned the privilege down -- but can she? (I genuinely don't know).

One man's (woman's) perceived sensitivity is another man's (woman's) procrastinating at work.

Simon said...

Cat,
That's a great point.

Molon_Labe_Lamp said...

You can't do this and fly on this.

Despite protestations to the contrary, it really is that simple.

A stopover for fuel in St. Louis is not going to bring the legislature to a grinding halt. We all have to make sacrifices Madame Speaker.

Cat said...

MM - All the wording suggests that the jet is a request to the executive, not a right nor something that comes with the job from the congressional budget - from her aides and apparently Jack Murtha. The fact that she requested a huge jet for an entourage rather than a G2 or Citation 10 goes beyond the security claim (smaller, but can make the trip without refueling and obviously use less fuel, I have booked them myself for executives). Her larger than necessary requests seem ostentatious.

Beth said...

Simon, it doesn't matter if Bush is or isn't talking about carbon footprints. If it's unsound for anyone to use a lot of fuel getting here or there, then it's unsound whether that person makes carbon an issue or not. The hypocrisy angle is just that, an angle to carp about. If our officials need to cut back on their fuel use, then surely that includes all of them. Every politician is an elitist who does and has things that the rest of us don't. Big deal.

Revenant said...

I don't see a need for the Speaker to have a plane. A President's work takes him all over the world. The Speaker's job is confined to Washington. Pelosi has reasons to travel to and from San Francisco on a regular basis, but they're reasons related to her job as Representative, not her job as Speaker.

Yes, I know past Speakers had their own private jets too, but that didn't make sense either.

Simon said...

Cat - and even if she were requesting a smaller plane, the point would remain that any private plane will have bigger carbon footprint than would commercial travel. As I see it, things don't have carbon footprints, people do - ergo, the carbon emission of a commercial air flight is divided equally into the number of people on the flight, excluding flight crew. So unless Pelosi flew commercial and by pure happenstance ended up being the only passenger, by definition a private plane is less environmentally sound.

Beth - here's a life lesson. You don't get to decide what other people think is the story. If I don't agree that "it's unsound for anyone to use a lot of fuel getting here or there" (and for that matter, even if I did), the issue isn't the environmental impact of the jet, it's the incongruity between what Pelosi says and what she does. It's that she doesn't want you and I to be allowed to pay for private air travel, but that at the same time, she wants us to pay for her private air travel. The hypocrisy isn't just an angle, so far as I'm concerned, it's the story. You can disagree, but don't tell me -- or anyone else -- what's actually important to us.

vbspurs said...

To me, it's simple.

I don't care whether or not Speaker Pelosi initiate the request. It could well be that she didn't, and for the record, I think the Speaker should be entitled to many securities not afforded the rank and file of legistlators.

Yes, I base this on their seniority in the line of Presidential succession (though no one really cares about old Senator Robert Byrd, 4th in line to succeed as Prez, being President Pro Temp of the Senate).

But I do mind that she posits herself as an environmentalist, and yet chooses the most destructive form of emissions to jet around to her destinations.

Of course, you need to, after all she lives in California.

But just like all those Hollywood types who make a big show and dance about being more environmentalist than thou by driving Priuses, and then get into their private jets for jaunts to NY, it's hypocrisy incarnate.

It's like finding out President Bush was stepping out on Mrs. Bush.

Liberals would have a field day with that one, but Conservatives have to stay mum when similar hypocrisy is noted.

Well, no.

Cheers,
Victoria

Cat said...

Simon - I only brought up the size as a demonstration of Pelosi's requests vs. a possible obligation rather than a demand to fly private in her role as Speaker that MM brought up. I don't think she has to fly private from what I read and obviously commercial vs. is private is less wasteful.

vbspurs said...

I don't think she has to fly private from what I read and obviously commercial vs. is private is less wasteful.

Is it?

I'm not challenging, just truly would like to ascertain if it is.

Wouldn't AF1/2 be more fuel efficient since they have minimal stopovers, unlike commercial carriers, and are not as big as the biggest jets around?

Therefore less petrol consumption, thus marginally better than flying commercial.

As for the airline ticket costs, I think that by rustling up all her staff or whomever, into one plane alongside her, than buying individual (subsidised?) tickets is also cheaper in the long run.

Of course, that doesn't take away my originally-stated objection that it's still hypocritical to be an environmentalist, and hop on jets.

(BTW, I don't mind Pelosi using AF1/2, or any other Speaker, but her staff? Nah)

Cheers,
Victoria

Simon said...

Victoria - see my comment to Cat above. The issue isn't really whether the individual jet is more fuel efficient, it's the number of passengers to divide the carbon output between. Consider: any individual car is more fuel efficient than any individual bus, so why is it that it's better for the environment to take the bus? Because the bus carries more people. Same thing here.

Pogo said...

Count this as an example of what to expect under National health Care: the establishment of our very own nomenklatura, where the élite have higher privileges than the mere masses.

"Important People" will be first in line for available medicines, surgeries, and treatments. The rest of us will make do. Because they know what's best for the proles.

As usual, what democratic socialists say and what they do are two very different things.

Cat said...

Pogo, she gets a government SUV in DC that is exempt from gas taxes too.

Victoria you think it costs $300,000 a pop to fly her staff to CA? They can all fly Jet Blue to Oakland like the rest of us schmucks or maybe she could cut down on "staff." She wants to use it for her staff, her family and for two hour drives:

"...According to reports, Speaker Pelosi requested the use of a military plane to attend a retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, last week. That's 150 miles or a two-hour drive from Washington, D.C. That request, by all accounts, was denied." (CNN, Lou Dobbs 2/5/07)

cardeblu said...

There is a difference between those who merely "say" but want others to do, and those who "do" but won't make others do the same:

(in 1999) According to Heymann, the four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place."

The resulting single-story ranch house, which was built by members of a religious community from the nearby community of Elm Mott, is a paragon of environmental planning.

The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home. Laura Bush insisted on the use of indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home.

In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the new ranch house reflect one of the Bushes' paramount priorities: relaxation. A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors.

With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. Heymann says, "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all."

hdhouse said...

MadisonMan said...

Denny Hastert never used the jet for personal reasons. GWB never uses AF1 to go to a campaign event. Cheney wouldn't think of using AF2 for something like that."


Source is Washington Times - a 3rd rate rag with the circulation of a Pennysaver. .. the rough equal to Drudge on paper.

Frankly after hauling those two lardasses - Cheney and Hastert - around, the planes will probably sing a song of relief.

RogerA said...

Beth: Is that you Elizabeth?

Cat said...

A calculator:

http://www.climatecare.org/britishairways/index.cfm

Cedarford said...

Good comment by Cat. Yes, the Speaker is quite replacable. So is the President Pro Tem of the Senate - which is now defined as being a Senator so old and out of touch you have to wear Depends diapers, be 93 to 97-years old and have young staff speak for what you really meant (Thurmond), insist that the Bridge to Nowhere gets built or they drag your dead body out of the Senate(Stevens), or be a Kleagle plotting how most US Navy Assets can be moved to West Virinia along the Robert Byrd Naval Canal located next to the Robert Byrd Highway next to Byrdsville - the mini-city containing Federal bureaucracys the Grand Appropriator scooped up from careless other locales.

Cat - Can someone tell me why the Speaker's security is so important? I know that it's 3rd in line, but if the Speaker is on a commercial jet and it gets blown up or she is somehow injured in some flight dustup, wouldn't the house majority just nominate someone else? I don't see it why it's necessary to spend $300,000 (from what I've read for this type of plane, fuel, etc. - I know from booking non-mil private planes that a round trip flight can be as much as $50,000 for a small jet like a G2 or Citation 10 without all of the staffing) for the flight to California for someone who could be replaced by their congressional peers in hours.

The imagined security needs of the unelected 3rd and 4th in line for Presidential succession is just a smokescreen for the real reason - perks.

Another area where the US Constitution is a vast embarassment.

We set up no rational sucession line for the Presidency. Kill the President and VP and you have a new Prez unable to speak from her day spa in Hollywood because her face is temporarily paralyzed by Botox injections. And no way on Earth would the American public have ever elected her to be 3rd in line or the clueless gerentocrats of the last 20 years in the Senate.

Or would the American public have thought it was a great idea to shift running the nation away from the Party elected to the opposition Party in a disaster. From with a nuke in DC or bad food served at Camp David one day. Or Dubya choking to death on a pretzel in the Oval Office and Cheney there keeling over from a heart attack trying to do a Heimlach maneuver on Dubya.

Several scholars have said a rational sucession plan for American government is absolutely critical now that two oceans no longer protect us or give time to whisk high muckety-muck Leaders away from DC into their safe bunkers. The military has one, most companies have one, nearly all major foreign nations have one....but guess what?? Congressional leadership is quite happy with what exists and wants no Amendment introduced to fix another big problem with the Constitution.

Big-time perks could be jeopardized!

On Cat's cost observation - it might be cheaper to fly Pelosi's Hollywood "beauty maintenance team" of stylists, botox doctors, fashion designers to her in DC on commercial flights that taxpayers pay for...than her AF jets.

Simon said...

As much as I hate to dignify him with a response, I can't let that stand. Cedarford continues his Levinson-esque unprovoked and irrational war on the Constitution: "[a]nother area where the US Constitution is a vast embarassment ... [is that] [w]e set up no rational sucession line for the Presidency." That is not a failing of the Constitution, which explicitly provides that "the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President." Art. II § 1 Cl. 6. Thus, even if one grants, arguendo, that 3 U.S.C. § 19 is "[ir]rational" (and I don't totally reject that view), that is a failing of Congress, not the Constitution.

Elizabeth said...

You can disagree, but don't tell me -- or anyone else -- what's actually important to us.

Simon, pardon while I laugh. That's exactly, precisely what you've been doing, pontificating on the story as you see it. I'm just calling you on it. Your outrage at the so-called hypocrisy is, indeed, an angle, or perspective if you prefer. It's just as valid as the "chickenhawk" hypocrisy conservatives blow a gasket over. Yeah, we're going to hear about global warming from people who aren't living on caves burning yak tallow candles and wearing hemp sackcloth. And we're going to continue to hear about standing strong and defending America and on and on from guys who ran as fast and far as they could when it was their turn to do exactly that. Hypocrites often end up in charge. Surprise!

Elizabeth said...

Hi RogerA, yes, it's me. I have no clue how or when my name was changed. I didn't do it, so I'll jump on the recent bandwagon and blame the Blogger upgrade.

Elizabeth said...

Pogo, I hate to break it to you. There's already an elite with better stuff than you and I have. All those elected officials, current and retired, have way better health care than we can afford.

Elizabeth said...

Conservatives have to stay mum when similar hypocrisy is noted.

Oh, yeah, Victoria. Conservatives are the quiet, long-suffering type, and are loath to throw stones. That's what makes them so charming. When I need a little calm, dignified discourse, I head over to Little Green Footballs or the Freeper site. Mum's the word!

MadisonMan said...

Simon, life is much easier if you ignore Cedarford altogether. The man needs to learn how to condense.

MadisonMan said...

Tech note: Wow, I'm publishing without the verification word intercepting things. When did that start?

Cedarford said...

As much as I hate to dignify Simons illogic and his mystical worship of the Sacred Parchment with a response, the all-wise Holy Founders of his favorite scrip blew it yet again.

By designating Congress as the successor to the Executive as they see fit to appoint whatever successor they designate, we end up, if a nuke goes off, with the Opposition Party in Power.

Which was part of the idea the plotters had in mind when they tried killing Lincoln, Johnson, and his key appointees like Stanton off. The idea was that then the Democrats more sypathetic to the South would take over.

We didn't learn then, we haven't learned since.

Congress insists on the Speaker and oldest most oblivious Senator - both set up by crony Party machinations - be 3rd and 4th in succession.
Which makes as much sense under Separation of Powers as saying that if the Prez and VP are nailed in war that the Chief Justice is the new President. Or the governors of the States, in order which they joined the Republic.

Every Constitutional scholar agrees it needs to be fixed by Amendment - they just disagree in order of it's urgency, with several saying it is the most pressing fix the Constitution needs, others saying that the requirement for elections if the House is nuked or biowar'd out of existence is even more important.

The succession of a President&VP should be within the Party that elected them, to express the Will of the People.

Pogo said...

Re: "...There's already an elite with better stuff than you..."

But Elizabeth, that's the point, isn't it?

Under democratic socialism that shouldn't happen. An egalitarian ethic underpins the Democrats' laws, regulations, and programs. But Pelosi shows that this is a lie. We'll get stuck with Medicare, she'll fly on gummint jets to SpecialCare.

And that's the point in highlighting her hypocrisy here. She says one thing and does another. It's bullshit. At least have the consistency to call her on it. Otherwise 'global warming' isn't a principle at all, just someone else's ox to Gore.

LoafingOaf said...

MadisonMan said...
Should the Speaker, 2nd in line to the Presidency, fly commercial?

I'm just a loafing oaf, so maybe I don't understand. But I would find it nice if the Speaker flew the Friendly Skies with the rest of us. As the representative of her congressional district, isn't she supposed to be accessible to the people? Isn't the whole point of the House that it is closer to the people?

Why exactly is it so obviously not possible for her to fly a regular airlines?

I'm not saying she has to fly commercial. Just that it would be neat.

And while there are security concerns, the reasons she doesn't include a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with security as well. Somehow I think it's possible for Nancy Pelosi to board a commercial jet without someone shooting her. We're all screened for weapons before we board a plane, ya know! I doubt most people would even recognize her.

But she doesn't have to fly commercial. Just don't tell me she has no choice but to request bigger and bigger jets. And don't tell me she really believes the world is about to end due to global warming, because if she thought that she sure as hell wouldn't be requesting a bigger jet. Just like John Edwards wouldn't be building a 28,000 square foot mansion.

And, Elizabeth: Yeah, we're going to hear about global warming from people who aren't living on caves burning yak tallow candles and wearing hemp sackcloth.

Wondering why the environmental crusaders are building themselves 28,000 sq ft mansions they do not need except to show off, and wondering why they're requesting ever-larger private jets they do not need, is pretty far from expecting them to live in a cave.

These are people who are not just saying there's global warming (which I agree with). They are saying: CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED WITHIN OUR LIFETIMES IF WE DON'T ALL MAKE RADICAL CHANGES SOONER THAN IMMEDIATELY.

It's as obvious as the mountains of snow outside my house that they don't believe their scare-mongering on global warming. Sure, they're concerned about it, as we all should be. But they're also hyping it.

vbspurs said...

Elizabeth wrote:

Oh, yeah, Victoria. Conservatives are the quiet, long-suffering type, and are loath to throw stones. That's what makes them so charming. When I need a little calm, dignified discourse, I head over to Little Green Footballs or the Freeper site. Mum's the word!

Due to my fractured syntax, I didn't get my point across correctly, Elizabeth.

By:


Liberals would have a field day with that one, but Conservatives have to stay mum when similar hypocrisy is noted.


I meant that the left-leaning people love to point hypocrisies on the part of the right-wingers, but when similar hypocrisy is uncovered in them, it's almost as if they didn't EXPECT anyone to notice, and certainly not to be called out for it.

I was talking only about progressives and how they treat hypocrisies, in the thrust of my point -- not noting that Conservatives are not as capable of the same, or that we are somehow better humans or long-suffering because we don't.

Clearly, both groups behave with appalling lack of consistency.

But when you put yourself forward as the alternative, it helps if the alternative is somewhat different from the same-old, same-old.

I mean, we know Cheney is going to burn up the airmiles, and thereto, suggest Pelosi types, the ozone layer. It's not like HE cares for the environment, they say.

But Pelosi isn't Cheney in environmental issues, and I guess that's Althousians' main point here.

Of course, I don't need a book to tell me that there are inconsistencies in behaviour on either side, but if at all interested, there is this one:

Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy

I've been waiting for the right-wing version for some time.

Why, it could almost write itself!

(But probably won't)

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

And that's the point in highlighting her hypocrisy here. She says one thing and does another. It's bullshit. At least have the consistency to call her on it. Otherwise 'global warming' isn't a principle at all, just someone else's ox to Gore.

Ox to Gore, oh very droll, very droll.

But quite true.

That's why Castro used to move from decadent bourgeois villa to decadent bourgeois villa every night, and not hunker down in some ramshackle building like the rest of his compatriots are forced to.

That's why Brezhnev and the Politburo had their luxurious dachas, their shopping trips to Paris, their wives spritzed Nina Ricci on themselves, and were swathed in Chanel, whilst their kids studied at the LSE, whereas other Soviets and their satellite comrades waited 5 years for a frikkin fridge, and 10 for a smokey old Lada. And those were the ones with pull.

-- (Hey Class-factotum! ;) --

As if you're not talking Communists but their Socialist friends, it's very well for Catherine Deneuve to speak of the socialist ideal, up in her Avenue Foch grand appartement; she doesn't have to live in the Pablo-Picasso-Bobigny slums.

My (lefty) dad told me that Brezhnev took luxury vacations to the Black Sea resorts, not because he wanted to, but because they were expected of him as Head Of State.

Bullpuckey.

Live by your ideals, especially if you are criticising the capitalist status quo that came before you.

If not, you not only will be called out for your hypocrisy, but should.

(Not just by people like me, and it's shocking it doesn't happen more often, by the very people who share your views. After all, they're the ones who say they're with the IDEALISTIC politics, not us)

Cheers,
Victoria

Beth said...

Otherwise 'global warming' isn't a principle at all, just someone else's ox to Gore.

Pogo, I love the pun. As for the rest, you're right: "global warming isn't a principle at all." It's a process, isn't it? And if it's a process we need address, then let us do that. I'm just not blinded to the absolute partisan hoopla behind the screams of "Damn that Pelosi!" and the silly instaquips about how we should just ignore it until al the liberals give up their limousines and jets. Pragmatically, I just don't expect people to be consistent, especially people in power.

Beth said...

Victoria, you give some great examples that I've drawn on myself when debating leftists who have a romantic Marxist streak.

Revenant said...

the silly instaquips about how we should just ignore it until al the liberals give up their limousines and jets

Instapundit has never said anything of the kind. What he has done is point out the obvious absurdity of people (a) claiming to care about global warming and (b) unnecessarily spewing out orders of magnitude more atmospheric carbon than typical Americans do. He has never said we should ignore global warming -- just that the likes of Gore and Pelosi refuse to do their part to prevent it.

That Gore uses private jets tells you that either (a) he doesn't really believe his own story about global warming or (b) he thinks he's a special person that the rules don't apply to. The problem with the second option is that he's no more special than billions of other people on Earth who *also* don't want to give up their luxuries. Why should I cut back on my lifestyle while some rich schmuck of an ex-politician from Washington lives like royalty?

MadisonMan said...

If you're going to damn Pelosi or Gore for uberconsumption while hectoring hoi polloi to cut back, that's fine. But their real consumption started when they decided to reproduce. Nothing says produce Greenhouse Gases like an extra mouth (or two or four) to feed.

Maybe only the childfree should be able to be environmentalists.

SteveR said...

Elizabeth: Sorry for being so snarky with you (Beth) earlier. You've earned more respect from me than that. Not that I agree with you, but that's fine.

RHSwan said...

Supposedly, Speaker Pelosi wanted the use of a C-32, otherwise known as a 757. If all she wanted was to fly non-stop across the country, the C-20, or the military version of the Gulfstream III would work. They both have secure communication capability although the C-32's would be much higher.

Beth said...

Steve, this thread has generated some snark, and I've added my share. Let's call offsetting penalties. Thanks.

vbspurs said...

Victoria, you give some great examples that I've drawn on myself when debating leftists who have a romantic Marxist streak.

Years ago, I used to have a hard-right mechanic (working-class chap, but with an FIU degree in literature, which I liked for its unusualness).

He would rail about the hypocrises of liberals, using pretty much the same examples I did, but of course, there was an undercurrent of something else there -- an absolute hate, which was ugly to see.

Well, this Law & Order guy with the big words on morality once offered me some pot to smoke whilst I waited for my car to be fixed, leaning over to stroke my bare leg as he did so (did I tell you he was married, and his lady was next door?).

How many times had he told me, that he hated the drug-infested slums of Liberty City, which his shop was not that far away from.

So I shot him a look that could chill Siberia, and said, "No, thanks. I wouldn't want to offend your Christian sensibilities."

Once my car was finished, I left for good. I won't be preached at by an unrepetant hypocrite.

Of course, people like that have no real power, they're just blowhards, but when you have ideals or they claim to, you gotta call a spade a spade.

Seems we've both been there, Elizabeth.

Cheers,
Victoria

Beth said...

Rev, I called it a "quip" because he's obviously joking--lamely, but joking.

Cedarford said...

MadisonMan - But their real consumption started when they decided to reproduce. Nothing says produce Greenhouse Gases like an extra mouth (or two or four) to feed.

Maybe only the childfree should be able to be environmentalists


If Pelosi, Noble Algore have 2.1 kids, they don't really impact population growth or even people like them (whites) with 3,4 kids. What is pushing America from 200 million in 1970 to 300 million today to 420 million in 2050 is 90% rampant, unchecked mass immigration into America.

What is causing Africa to explode from 211 million in 1950 to 2,2 billion in 2050 is large families and modern medical care and high tech that allows larger populations until the water, arable land, and energy runs out.

If we want to consume less, we can, keep our current reproductive choice, we can but that also compels us to end Open Borders, end accepting refugees, family 'reunification' chain migration, illegals plopping out "anchor babies". And subsidizing the stupidest and most dependent on the government teat to have large families.
Otherwise, the 3rd World pouring into America and the low-skilled natives cranking out large families of similarly low-skilled or outright parasitic offspring completely wipes out the beneficial effects of existing Americans conserving and having smaller families.

rsb said...

One. Washington Times
Two. all politicians are the same