The idea that Ms. Crow should be required to give up her career before she can be allowed to say a word in favor of conservation is just wrong.

Who said anything about giving up her career? Oh yeah, not me.

She tours, therefore she necessarily will use plenty of fuel for transportation.

She can use less. Six cars? Three buses? Please.

Neither should John Edwards be asked to give up all of his earthly belongings or his expensive haircuts before he can advocate for the poor. He made his money. He can spend it however he likes.

Of course, but this doesn't change the fact that he, and Ms. Crow, are sanctimonious pricks. Edwards wants to do something for the poor? Sell his house, buy something much more modest and then donate the proceeds to various charities. Before he comes with the coercive power of the state, assuming he gets elected, demanding my money on the pain of punishment perhaps he should look to his own ginormous house.

I can't help but feel that the folks who are so fond of bringing up these weak, ad-hominen hypocrisy charges are simply not willing or not able to make an effective argument to the issues.

It isn't an ad-hominem. Crow and David feel that AGW is a serious issue, but instead of changing their lifestyles they want to force everybody else to change so that they can maintain their own. In short, pointing out hypocrisy is not an ad hominem.

Judge: On the single count of using more squares than alloted, how do you plead?

Criminal: Innocent, Your Honor. It was the burrito I just ate...

Judge: That's what they all say. Bail is set at $200,000. Next!

Of course, lets forget about the tractor trailers and buses that Sheryl Crow use while touring. Yes, little Ms. Green, who doesn’t take a dump, travels with three tractor trailers, four buses and six cars. Ahh the hypocrisy of the celebrity class.

Although I agree that Ms. Crow is wrong to promote this particular brand of coerced environmentalism, I would like to raise an objection to this sort of silly (and unfortunately, all too common) Republican talking point.

The idea that Ms. Crow should be required to give up her career before she can be allowed to say a word in favor of conservation is just wrong. She tours, therefore she necessarily will use plenty of fuel for transportation. It's her job. Neither should John Edwards be asked to give up all of his earthly belongings or his expensive haircuts before he can advocate for the poor. He made his money. He can spend it however he likes.

I can't help but feel that the folks who are so fond of bringing up these weak, ad-hominen hypocrisy charges are simply not willing or not able to make an effective argument to the issues.

No doubt we can all cut back on use of paper products, but I don't need a mediocre singer to tell me how to go about it.

No wonder Rove didn't want to talk to that woman!

And that's also why he yelled at her "Don't touch me!"

I for one think that Ms. Crow is on to something.

The great TP wasters are women, who use tissue for both [No. 1] and [No. 2].

The male "shake" has saved COUNTLESS old-growth forests from obliteration. Men of the world, give each other a hand! --Just wash first.

Thanks, Anderson, I almost fried my computer after nearly spewing my coffee while reading your post.

That was brilliant (and so very true)!

The un-funny part of this is, "If a celebrity hypocrite opens his or her yap to say this sort of stuff, and the MSM does not report on it, does the public at large even find out about it?"

Yes I frequently find myself thinking, "if only the MSM could spend a little more time telling me what various celebrities think."

Oh wait...

Steve, she is just a typical liberal, right up your alley.