Hypocrisy among public figures is nothing new. But lately we've been witnessing examples that represent seemingly new dimensions of mind-numbing duplicity.
First there was John Edwards running for President, earnestly presenting himself as a model husband standing by his wife while she dealt bravely with cancer. And then we had Tiger Woods, making hundreds of millions from product endorsements which projected an image of the golfer as composed, dignified and exemplary.
Neither of these guys are doing too well right now.
And they're not alone. It seems like every day people in the public eye are revealed to have been acting in blatant conflict with their public image.
Take George Rekers. One of the foremost and most vehement anti-gay activists in the country, Rekers has been doing his best to out-do Ted Haggard and Mark Foley. Rekers, who served with James Dobson on the founding board of Focus on the Family, has made a career out of pathologizing gays and lesbians as a "deviant segment" of society, and has been a leader in the effort to prevent them from being able to marry or adopt children. He was recently found to have taken a male escort, whose services he obtained from rentboy.com, on a 10 day vacation, getting daily nude massages from his paid travel "companion."
And then there is the sad spectacle of the Congressman from Indiana, Mark Souder. A hard-line "family values" conservative and fervent proponent of traditional marriage, Souter has been one of the most zealous advocates in the country for abstinence-only programs for youth. With the help of a young and attractive member of his staff, he made a now widely viewed video advocating against schools providing any kind of sexual education other than curriculum exclusively designed to promote abstinence. Souder, who is married, resigned from Congress this week after admitting having an affair with the staffer, who is also married.
Do George Rekers' or Mark Souder's lifestyle choices entirely negate their beliefs about homosexuality and abstinence? I don't think so. Just because the messenger is flawed, doesn't mean the message is necessarily wrong. The reason that I disagree with them is this: I think the policies they advocate are cruel, repressive and out of touch with human nature. And I find the scientific evidence supporting them to be virtually nonexistent.
Now there's the news this week that Al and Tipper Gore recently purchased a fourth home, this one a $9 million ocean-view estate in Montecito, California, with nine bathrooms, six fireplaces, five bedrooms, a wine cellar, swimming pool, spa, fountains and extensive terraces. The mansion is, apparently, a summer home for the couple.
You'd think the former Vice President, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work to educate people about the dangers of global warming, would be concerned about his carbon footprint. But this isn't the first time Gore's desire to live large has collided with his call for us to transition to greener and more energy efficient ways of life. The day after his film about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Academy Award for Best Documentary, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research released a report stating that Gore's Nashville, Tennessee home, which he still owns, was using more than 20 times the energy of the average US home.
It's reminiscent of the sarcastic remark by the American essayist Logan Pearsall Smith. "All reformers," he said, "however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for."
I don't believe that's true about all environmental reformers, and I certainly don't begrudge Al Gore the money he has made investing in ventures that he believes are part of the solution. He's never professed any aversion to capitalism, and it's long been a central part of his message that there are major profits to be made in new green technologies.
But I question whether Gore considered his own ecological footprint when he and Tipper decided to purchase their fourth home. And I wonder if he recognized how his choice might fuel allegations of hypocrisy and elitism. If you want to spearhead a worldwide movement, "Do as I say, not as I do" is probably not the most effective social statement.
Any coherent environmental understanding today has got to recognize the damage we are doing to the planet through our overconsumption of resources and energy. Gore may eventually "green" his new home with solar panels, and maybe he'll spend millions more to make it into a model of alternative energy. Will he put composting toilets in all nine bathrooms, and burn nothing but organic sugar cane waste in the home's six fireplaces? Even if he does, the sheer size of it, not to mention his three other homes, means that its construction alone used vast amounts of energy and materials. In a world of finite natural resources and an ever-growing human population, the inconvenient truth is that we need to learn not just to green our consumption, but also to consume less stuff.
I believe that, on balance, Al Gore has made enormous contributions to the environmental movement. And I don't think that his extravagant lifestyle choices discredit the overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change. But at some point, each of us has to look into the mirror, assess the way we are living, and ask whether we are doing what we can for the planet and the life it makes possible.
It's not enough any longer to agree in principle with the cause of environmental protection or the importance of honesty in our intimate lives. We need to agree with them in practice.
I'm not saying this is easy. The clash between hypocrisy and integrity takes place in every human life. Each of us, and I certainly include myself here, has done many things that have been costly to the environment and to the well-being of those we love. I could give you a painfully long list of the things I've bought or done that were harmful, that were wasteful, and that generated pollution. But I could also give you a list of the things I'm doing that are positive and fruitful, that speak of respect for life and the environment. My work is to make sure that as the days pass, the first list grows shorter while the second grows longer.
Any sane person with an ounce of self-reflection knows that none of us lives in complete integrity with our values all the time. That's why I concur with Moliere that "one should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others."
I believe that we can learn a great lesson from the examples of the people whose actions have conflicted with their message. If we learn that lesson, then they will have actually done us a service.
The lesson isn't that this person or that one is bad and if we hate them enough or punish them enough then we will all be cleansed of their evil. Judging others and feeling superior to them never freed a human soul.
The lesson is that while it's relatively simple to practice virtue at a distance, that's not enough. You must do the hard and ongoing work of bringing your life into alignment with who you really are. Sometimes it takes great discipline to make your choices congruent with your values.
The lesson is that feeling morally superior or righteously indignant won't heal the world. The lesson is that your real religion is what you do when the sermon is over.
For practical and down-to-earth steps you can take, at any level of financial capacity, to live with greater integrity and real freedom, see The New Good Life: Living Better Than Ever in an Age of Less, by John Robbins. And for further information about the life and work of John Robbins, visit his website.
Follow John Robbins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnrobbinsnow
John Robbins: Human Nature: What Kind of Creature Are We?
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global Warming- Science - The New York Times
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
http://beforeitsnews.com/news/44/692/Astonishing_Science:_Sun_May_Cause_Global_Warming.html
"Nature had a news article last week about a paper – and the reactions to it - by Mike Lockwood and Claus Froehlich. Their comprehensive (and conclusive) (re)-analysis of solar trends concludes that the sum of natural changes in solar activity since 1985 would have cooled our climate, were it not for the strong warming effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations."
"Lockwood and Froehlich’s study does however go a step further. The two find that the correlation between solar activity and temperature trends post-1985 is actually negative. This means that changes to the sun (including cosmic ray intensity, for that matter) have contributed Less than Zero to the recent sharp rise in average global temperatures."
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/sun_not_a_cause_of_global_warm.html
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090402200749.htm
Al Gore could buy a hundred more mansions, and his carbon footprint still wouldn't come close to one Appalachian hilltop stripmined for coal - with all the attendent pollution going straight into the drinking water of some of our poorest citizens. Get some perspective, please.
it a real meaning to explain the significance of the crux of the matter he wants to deal with, as I feel.
He has very rightly and though the time is over, still better late than never; gone at length to discuss the subject and it all boils down to "Human Values", which are like implanting a seed in an unploughed and unmanured field, where the seed has been thrown and watered with a hope of cultivating a good crop.
With permission, I would like to use John's last para's last line, "...... The lesson is that your real religion is what you do when the sermon is over." I would agree whole heartedly with what he says that it is what you do when the sermon is over. True. But this whole thing itself depends on the "Well ploughed, manured and watered field (Heart)", where the seed once sowed will result in a good crop. All you need to watch out is the "weeds".
Therefore, develop a pure unsullied "Heart" with a well ploughed, manured and watered field for the seed to sprout. Just keep the weeds of bad company and ill thoughts out of contact to adulterate your mind.
God bless.
Dr. O. P. Sudrania
Dr. O. P. Sudrania
Many blessings on you, Deo, Ocean, Michelle and the boys!
If you love John Robbins' work please join the fan group on Facebook! http://bit.ly/newgood
"Gore's Nashville, Tennessee home, which he still owns, was using more than 20 times the energy of the average US home."
But he doesn't bother to mention this about the historic home Mr. Gore purchased and revitalized:
***
"Gore makes Nashville home more 'green'
* Home now has solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating
* Highest rating possible "short of tearing it down," says U.S. Green Building Council
"The Green Building Council's certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification....
...his natural gas use has dropped 93 percent in the three months since the geothermal pump was activated.
Shinn said Gore's renovations are impressive because his home, which is more than 80 years old, had to meet the same rigorous standards as new construction.
"One of the things that is tremendously powerful about what the Gores have done is demonstrate that you can take a home that was a dog, an absolute energy pig, and do things to correct that," Shinn said." --CNN article, years ago
No defender of Gore has yet explained how what he does has no ecological impact. Even if "green" rated, humongous houses displace wildlife, disrupt soil ecology, and require the energy used to make the materials from which they are constructed.
As I said previously, what this confortable scenario does is allow people to um, "buy" into the myth that growth can continue forever. So they do not have to question the cost to the other living beings of this planet. Or to the working people increasingly shoved aside by the viciousness of global economics. Like the dead coal miners and oil rig workers. Irresponsible, callous multinationals using up the bodies of humans to extract what's left of the earth's resources to feed rising energy demands.
The ethics of which is disgusting. And so is the assumption that the wealthy are entitled to have everything because money acts in effect like a black hole. The ultimate trickle-up; attracting everything to itself. Explain to me why this represents the best of all possible economic worlds. Surely the intelligence of our species can come up with a better reason for life than mindless, destructive consumption.
1. The 20x number is based on Gore's usage in 2006, which predates most of the expensive energy-saving improvements he made to the home. You can say that he "finally" did this if you like, but do you know how long he had been planning these updates? If you don't, you really shouldn't be saying "finally."
2. The 20x comparison is between Gore's usage in 2006 and the national average for 2001. Not kosher, unless you doubt that energy usage rose between 2001 and 2006.
3. Comparing Gore's home and a typical American home is unfair. A more fair comparison would be to a typical NASHVILLE home. Based on AP's research (http://bit.ly/cxUSZ4), Nashville is well above the national average for energy use. This alone chops the number nearly in half, from 20x down to 12x. (And, by the way, this is a lovely example of the "inappropriate denominator" trick--see Peter Gleick's post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/using-misleading-science_b_585666.html)
(cont'd)
1)Robins never said that integrity is impossible, only that it is difficult. Integrity involves choices, and real choices create internal conflict. There will always be an amount of congnitive dissonance between what we "want", and what we know is right and good. The point is not to be overpowered by it.
2) While I agree with your assesment of Science, Religion, Education, et. al. being mannifestations of culture, I disagree with your idea that respect is secondary. A quick analysis of world cultures demonstrates my point: Manners and mutual respect are the foundation of any "civilized" society. In fact, the most successful social justice movements advocate allocating resources based on respect for all individuals, rather than simple selfishness.
Just my two cents.
Thank you.
From Norge