|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Green Fakers(continued)
LEFTY BESTIES Laurie David and Bobby Kennedy at the 2006 Forces for Nature Gala David's pal Bobby Kennedy, founder of the conservationist Waterkeeper Alliance and a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, was equally unconvincing when forced to explain why he opposed a windmill farm that would generate large amounts of clean energy while imposing ever-so-slightly on the view from his family's compound in Hyannis Port. So hollow were Kennedy's arguments that a slew of other environmental groups and leaders implored him to drop his opposition, which he has yet to do. Even Leonardo DiCaprio, generally regarded as a serious sort not given to excessive grandstanding, came up short in May when quizzed about his travel habits: "I try as often as possible to fly commercially," he offered. "As often as possible"—as though there are times it's simply impossible to avoid flying private. As though forces beyond his control occasionally abduct Leo, drug him, and drag his limp body onto an executive jet. It's always galling to be exhorted to curb your consumption by people who are living the poshest lifestyle imaginable. But the problem here goes beyond aesthetics. Eco-hypocrites undercut the very message they're trying to peddle. How desperate could the planet's plight be if the people who present themselves as most concerned about it consider flying first-class commercial an unacceptable sacrifice? Why should anyone bother to carpool when Streisand requires her own convoy? Or forgo A/C for a fan when Edwards is chilling in the largest house in his county? The implication of the hypocrites' behavior is that we must take all measures to fight global warming short of those that would reduce our quality of life. But a reduction in quality of life—or at least a redefinition of it—is exactly what Americans are going to have to accept to make a meaningful dent in greenhouse gas levels. 
MY OTHER JET IS A HYBRID John Edwards disembarks his plane, boards an SUV Pressed to explain their lifestyles, celebrities sometimes fall back on the claim that the behavior of individuals is, essentially, irrelevant—that the reform that's needed is really at the industrial and national level. As DiCaprio put it, "In the long term it's about instilling [environmentally friendly principles] into governments and corporations so these things are part of our everyday lives." In other words, he's saying, conservation is less a moral imperative than a personal virtue. Who knew we'd ever see the day when Hollywood lefties would be echoing Dick Cheney? But what if the next time some actor who fancies himself Ed Begley Jr. gets nailed for owning a Hummer, instead of circling the wagons and impugning his critics' motives, he were to call a press conference to say, "You know what? You're absolutely right. I'm going to trade that Hummer in for a hybrid tomorrow." What if Leonardo DiCaprio, instead of hedging, had vowed never to fly private again, even if it meant he would face the occasional delay or detour, as the rest of us do? What if John Edwards agreed to dismantle the 15,600-square-foot recreation center that makes his $6 million home the biggest around? What if Bobby Kennedy declared clean power more beautiful than unfettered sightlines? Celebrities who say they have the power to change people's minds are right. Laurie David and Al Gore are a big part of the reason global warming has become a daily part of the national discussion. But without real, visible commitment to back up all the talk, it's just a fashionable pose—and we all know what happens with those. (Remember all those supermodels in the '90s who swore they'd rather go naked than wear fur, only to turn up a few years later sporting pelts in Vogue?) People who try to use their fame for a good cause deserve to be applauded. But they also need to be reminded—by their allies as well as their adversaries—that actions still speak louder than words.
READ MORE • On Safari With Graydon Carter and Bono • Today's Top Stories 
Who cares? Does anyone really hold Streisand and DiCaprio to these high standards? Does anyone really think they're doing any more than drawing attention to a WORTHY CAUSE by using their celebrity in a positive way? It does not bother me that Streisand tours in a jet. I'm sure she conserves in other ways. The same way I do. I may drink bottled water, but I make an attempt to recycle them. I cannot sing like Barbra Streisand, therefore I do not have a "jet issue". But I do not expect Streisand to go on tour in a hybrid car either. It's a silly argument that I see repeated over and over again by the right-wingers. I agree with the editor who said you're trolling. WHO CARES? Move on to more important issues like Bush, the Iraq war, Health Care, etc. Posted by: ustreetdude on August 6, 2007 3:58 PM ustreetdude on August 6, 2007 03:58 PM Of course you don't care! Standard hypocritical answer from a lefty. EVERYTHING'S acceptable for liberals. Just don't dare let you catch a conservative doing the same exact thing. When a lefty is caught doing something wrong ... it's okay because it was "for the right reasons." When a conservative is caught doing the exact thing same thing ... they're friggin Nazis. Posted by: Gregor on August 6, 2007 5:45 PM Great Argument "Who Cares" Laughable. IT IS VERY UNLIKELY that the LIKES of Streisand can reverse their lifetime of polluting. Sad thing is the Ustreetdudes KNOW IT ..yet don't care. Dude my boy you are just what the left loves... uneducated and nonsensical. Posted by: Jamson64 on August 7, 2007 7:11 PM Being irate and plain insulting fails to forward a point. The frustration for me is that the people in the best position to draw attention to this worthy cause are also in the best position to practice what they preach. They have the money to buy and invest in the more environmentally friendly option. Unlike most, they're not limited by their financial situation. To get biblical, it doesn't matter if Streisand buys the soymilk with the green energy credits. She can do a lot better. To the same effect, to the woman who's just trying to get by, I only have praise for when she'll find the extra cash to buy "green" products. It's exasperating to hear someone urge us to ration while they glut. I do care because I actually believe in the cause. The message being sent to me by the hypocritical action of a lot of these celebrities is that the cause isn't that big of a deal. Because if they genuinely thought it was a big deal, and if they genuinely thought an individual could make a difference, they'd be behaving a whole lot differently. Posted by: am.tran on August 8, 2007 4:34 AM Advertisement The picture of Edwards reminds me of a little parody I wrote a few months ago ... think Dire Straits ... ************** See that litigator with his perfect TV makeup We gotta sue everyone with deep pockets ( http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2007/03/money-for-nothing.html ) ************** ustreetdude -- the problem with these stars is that the "solutions" they support are too often derived from an anti-free-entrprise/pro-socialist bias that oversimplifies both the actual benefit of the solution, and the consequences of its implementation upon all social strata. Think the hysteric banning of DDT vs. the reality of malaria in many parts of the world, for one example. Those of us who dissent from the Green (party) Line don't want to see the nest fouled ... either by trashing the environment, or by trashing the economic health of millions in a vain quest to eliminate parts-per-billion probabilities of "threats". In fact, the latter can end up trashing the environment, in the end ... for it's kind of hard for people to concentrate on Saving the Planet when they are uncertain where their next rent check ... or meal ... is coming from. Posted by: Rich Casebolt on August 9, 2007 11:26 AM i salute your honesty in exposing the hypocrisy. it is becoming clear that global warming, excuse me, climate change is quickly becoming a class issue. a battle of the carbon haves and have nots. Posted by: ming666 on August 10, 2007 1:28 PM i salute your honesty in exposing the hypocrisy. it is becoming clear that global warming, excuse me, climate change is quickly becoming a class issue. a battle of the carbon haves and have nots. Posted by: ming666 on August 10, 2007 4:10 PM John Edwards 2004? Nice one Radar, nice one. Streisand is irrelevant, no one under the age of 36 attends her concerts in years, you're talking as if that is Radar's demographic. Why I do I give a damn about her? How about Why the Was the Most Banal Editorial I've Read in Recent Memory (I apologize for my verbosity). How about why we should not pay attention to celebrities? I'm not reading News Corp's People Magazine, am I? Posted by: ishallexact on August 19, 2007 11:09 PM Post a commentYour comment will not be visible for about a minute. If you don't see your comment when the page reloads, do not post it again. Reload the page in a minute, and you'll see it. < BACK TO Features |
    
 |
|
 |
|
 | ||||
Share This Article
Like this article? Click here to buzz it up on Yahoo!