Liberal Hypocrites

By

Liberal hypocrisy go together like well, Bill and Hill.  And as this
review of the book Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Doubleday) by Peter Schweitzer demonstrates, they go together quite well.  But they're not alone; many of their fellow and lady liberals live down to the book's title and premise with "a stunning record of open and shameless hypocrisy."
 
Throwing out example after example, the reviewer, Bruce Thornton, explains how all those famous——and not so famous liberals——take advantage of the very system they so decry for their own financial, physical and social enrichment. 
 
Some interesting capsules:
 
Barbra Streisand?

Yet Streisand, whose foundation owns stocks in several oil companies, spent $22,000 dollars a year just to water the lawn of her Malibu home. And she has an air—conditioned twelve—thousand—square foot barn just to house her show business memorabilia. That's a lot of greenhouse gases.

And of course Michael Moore, who has grown rich and fat and famous with his Oscar winning films decrying and mocking the rich and fat and conservative (not so) famous and their institutions

who despite boasting about not owning stock has set up a private foundation to invest his money and shelter it from taxes. This foundation owns nearly $400,000 in corporate stocks and bonds, including pharmaceutical and medical companies like Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. And even as he attacks HMOs in his recent movie Sicko, Moore owns shares in two HMOs. His portfolio also contains oil company stocks, and he has even owned stock in Halliburton, the Left's corporate Darth Vader. Nor does this ample portfolio go to funding activist causes: "For a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and films."

As for those holier than thou art Democrats

Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader — as Schweitzer documents, all these scolds of capitalist greed and champions of the down—trodden have done very well manipulating the system to increase their own power and privilege so that their money doesn't end up in the government's hands to finance the social justice schemes they loudly champion.

And  what about Bill and Hill's deep commitment to social justice and fine education for all?  Good for your kid to be the guinea pig for educational experimentation but for their only child

When the Clintons came to Washington, they could have sent a powerful message of support for D.C. public schools by enrolling Chelsea in a neighborhood school like Jefferson or Hine. But of course, they enrolled her instead in the super—elite Sidwell Friends.

To her credit Chelsea apparently did well there; would she have done as well in the D.C. public schools with classmates, many of whom lacked the professional and caring parents and friends who surrounded her? Her father Bill, to his credit, lacked the parental and communal guidelines but he managed to graduate Yale Law School on his own.
 
Chomsky, Franken, Nader and more are here, ranting and raving about evil, selfish others, offering solutions——for you only.

As Schweitzer concludes, liberal hypocrisy is the ultimate testament to the bankruptcy of most liberal ideas, for liberals "really don't respect their own ideas and have privately concluded, whether they admit it to themselves or not, that liberalism as practiced today does not offer them a road map to happiness," for these ideas are "ultimately self—defeating, self—destructive, and unworkable."

Ethel C. Fenig  4 19 06

Liberal hypocrisy go together like well, Bill and Hill.  And as this
review of the book Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Doubleday) by Peter Schweitzer demonstrates, they go together quite well.  But they're not alone; many of their fellow and lady liberals live down to the book's title and premise with "a stunning record of open and shameless hypocrisy."
 
Throwing out example after example, the reviewer, Bruce Thornton, explains how all those famous——and not so famous liberals——take advantage of the very system they so decry for their own financial, physical and social enrichment. 
 
Some interesting capsules:
 
Barbra Streisand?

Yet Streisand, whose foundation owns stocks in several oil companies, spent $22,000 dollars a year just to water the lawn of her Malibu home. And she has an air—conditioned twelve—thousand—square foot barn just to house her show business memorabilia. That's a lot of greenhouse gases.

And of course Michael Moore, who has grown rich and fat and famous with his Oscar winning films decrying and mocking the rich and fat and conservative (not so) famous and their institutions

who despite boasting about not owning stock has set up a private foundation to invest his money and shelter it from taxes. This foundation owns nearly $400,000 in corporate stocks and bonds, including pharmaceutical and medical companies like Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. And even as he attacks HMOs in his recent movie Sicko, Moore owns shares in two HMOs. His portfolio also contains oil company stocks, and he has even owned stock in Halliburton, the Left's corporate Darth Vader. Nor does this ample portfolio go to funding activist causes: "For a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and films."

As for those holier than thou art Democrats

Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader — as Schweitzer documents, all these scolds of capitalist greed and champions of the down—trodden have done very well manipulating the system to increase their own power and privilege so that their money doesn't end up in the government's hands to finance the social justice schemes they loudly champion.

And  what about Bill and Hill's deep commitment to social justice and fine education for all?  Good for your kid to be the guinea pig for educational experimentation but for their only child

When the Clintons came to Washington, they could have sent a powerful message of support for D.C. public schools by enrolling Chelsea in a neighborhood school like Jefferson or Hine. But of course, they enrolled her instead in the super—elite Sidwell Friends.

To her credit Chelsea apparently did well there; would she have done as well in the D.C. public schools with classmates, many of whom lacked the professional and caring parents and friends who surrounded her? Her father Bill, to his credit, lacked the parental and communal guidelines but he managed to graduate Yale Law School on his own.
 
Chomsky, Franken, Nader and more are here, ranting and raving about evil, selfish others, offering solutions——for you only.

As Schweitzer concludes, liberal hypocrisy is the ultimate testament to the bankruptcy of most liberal ideas, for liberals "really don't respect their own ideas and have privately concluded, whether they admit it to themselves or not, that liberalism as practiced today does not offer them a road map to happiness," for these ideas are "ultimately self—defeating, self—destructive, and unworkable."

Ethel C. Fenig  4 19 06