DiCaprio: I Don’t Want to Control You. I Want the Bureaucrats to Control You. 9

Leonardo DiCaprio is great at playing characters who are psychologically confused, as was the case with Shutter Island. It's fitting, because he sounds completely lost when he defines the green movement's relationship with the average American.

Leo has a brand new ride. A $100,000 ride. Sure, he could have saved himself over $99,000 and bought a bicycle (the only carbon emissions come from your pesky, polluting lungs!), but that’s all right. He’s Hollywood. He needs to be cool. And how much cooler can you be than by owning a 2012 Fisker Karma? Yes, Al Gore is on the waiting list, which instantly makes it a little less desirable, but for a few short months Leo will be in an exclusive club. He can probably even ride it to any of James Cameron’s North American mansions without ever running out of gas.

Regardless, if it wasn’t for the gross inequalities liberals like Leo claim to abhor—before demanding millions for their next big film—who would be able to shoulder the R&D costs that will eventually bring the Fisker Karma down to price range normal folks can afford? Sadly, a Leonardo DiCaprio stunt double is not given a Leonardo DiCaprio stunt bank account.

Some might look at Leonardo DiCaprio’s new car and wonder why he would buy a vehicle with a “diamond dust” paint job. Who mined those diamonds? Which African country was exploited by which Chinese company outsourced by an evil American corporation to bring that diamond-dust paint to the market? Why mine diamonds in the first place, when they’re perfectly happy resting between the breasts of Mother Earth where they belong?

Asked whether or not he should be the poster boy for environmentalism, the actor recently responded to The Mail’s Live magazine:

“This is not about me…And it’s not about one group of people telling any other group of people how to live. I don’t think it’s fair to tell people to install solar panels, buy (low-watt) light bulbs or drive a hybrid – that’s not a reality for most people.’

‘It is about something much, much bigger. It’s about getting the governments of the world to implement environmental policy.”

Did you catch that? In between the first and last sentences were a few platitudes about caring about the rights of consumers, so it may have been easy to miss. Here it is again:

“It’s not about one group of people telling any other group of people how to live…It’s about getting the governments of the world to implement environmental policy.”

It’s not about telling you what to do; it’s about telling you what to do. Still confused? Leo doesn’t want to tell you what to do—he wants nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA to tell you what to do. That way, you still think he’s a really cool guy, see his movies, fill his pockets with cash that will allow him to buy expensive toys, and he still gets to feel good about himself at Hollywood fundraisers for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.

Shutter Island and Inception were both great movies that starred Leonardo DiCaprio. Both involved mind games. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell Leo that the American people like watching mind games on the big screen, but they don’t like experiencing them in real life. Hopefully the king of the world will take his $100,000 luxury car that can get 100 miles to the gallon and drive far, far away until J. Edgar Hoover comes out.

9 comments

  1. Do you research anything?

    The Diamond Dust paint you refer too is a water-based paint containing *glass.* No actual diamonds were harmed making his car, Doug. Nice appeal to emotion.

    The Fisker Karma would never be affordable by the masses. That much is obvious looking at it. Until the Model T, most cars weren’t affordable. This exotic (along with others) will drive the technology and consumer demand that will someday make cars like the Karma and Volt affordable.

    And how exactly is it bad to ask that governments create sound, sustainable environmental policy? Take a long draught from a coal power plant effluent pipe and tell me how our government guiding the free markets to invest in sustainable energy is a bad thing. China currently is the biggest investor in alternate energy and they don’t have Al Gore? Why is that?

    p.s. The EPA doesn’t tell the public what to do. Joe Blow doesn’t have an effluent pipe coming out of the coal fire plant in his back yard.

  2. RealityCalling, have you ever heard of the word ‘facetious’? You seem smart enough to figure out that I don’t give a rip one way or the other if there are real diamonds in the paint or not…

    I’m more concerned with a.) Leo’s hypocrisy and b.) his carefully worded concern for consumer choice…the choice he hopes governments limit according to his worldview.

    • C’mon. You make multiple attempts to point out exactly how he was hypocritical before going for the jugular with some appeal to conservative’s “big gov’t” scare tactic.

      1. You name-dropped Gore and Cameron (hypocrites in your earlier articles).

      2. Hinted that Leo invest his money to make the Fisker more affordable.

      It was never meant to be affordable. See previous comment. Though, he actually owns an affordable all-electric Nissan Leaf and Toyota Prius. Plus, you also overlooked the fact he bough two AMERICAN-MADE electric cars. No Detroit manufacturer is making all electrics. What are his choices for affordable, USA-made all electrics?

      3. “Some might look at Leonardo DiCaprio’s new car and wonder why he would buy a vehicle with a “diamond dust” paint job.”

      Being ‘Facetious?’ Really? Not “giving a rip” isn’t the same thing as being deliberately glib. You were trying to paint him as a hypocrite and used diamond paint as a supporting argument. Hell, even I thought the paint had diamonds in it before googling it. Admit it, you took a cheap shot.

      He made three, short quotes (out of what was surely a longer interview). You left out the third:

      ‘We are the most powerful country in the world and we haven’t made a tiptoe towards renewable technologies. We should be the ones paving the way, the ones other countries look up to. It makes me extremely sad.’ — DiCaprio

      How is that a bad thing? How exactly does our government limit choice with environmental policy? The EPA doesn’t make laws, Doug. You know that. Congress made the light bulb law. The EPA isn’t a free market bogeyman.

      • Maybe you thought there was diamond dust in the paint because the original source has it worded that way: “Luxurious touches include keyless entry, bucket seats, and diamond dust in the paint.”

        Is it really that much of a stretch to think there might be some real diamond dust sprinkled in when it costs as much as it does, coupled with the wording of the article it was pulled from? Maybe you should Google where a lot of the rare earth metals found in fuel cells and batteries and the like come from…like I said, I don’t really care—but Leo does when it comes to that sort of stuff.

        Your MO is great, which is to ignore the broader points I’m making and pick apart things like “diamond dust”. Here’s an idea for you: How about you get up for work at 6:00 a.m. so you can start a long commute into work. Then get home around 7:30 p.m. so you can eat and have just enough time look up some stories to blog on and (if you don’t have work that needed to be brought home) finish a post with a few links by midnight. That’s usually how it goes.

        Where was I today—on Saturday? Work. And now I’m about to blog before passing out. I’d love to see your blog and how air tight it is. Oh, wait…it doesn’t appear you have one. But yet you’re quick on the draw to pronounce something “the stupidest thing I’ve ever read” on mine. Interesting.

  3. So if I don’t have a blog, my comments have no weight? Leo should live in as a Native American to avoid hurting the environment or he’s a hypocrite?

    You choose to commute in DC. You choose to post a blog. You choose to put your thoughts out there. You choose to accept comments. Boo hoo if this reader doesn’t agree with you.

    You also choose to work for a “leading conservative think tank” that you link to in many of your articles. Your day job is to indoctrinate new conservatives through internships. Promoting your company’s ideals is your career and it appears to be eating up your personal time on weekends too.

    Do you disagree with anything your company, party, or icons say or do? If so, you won’t find it on your blog, but you will find blogs about Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kal Penn, and other “liberal” morons (who, coincidentally, have at one time supported Obama, though Damon has all but abandoned him) who disagree with your ideology. Tear them down instead of building your platform.

    As far as my modus operandi, I addressed EACH ONE of your points. How is that ignoring the broader points? You want to point out DiCaprio is a hypocrite because… his car contains rare earth metals? So does the computer your typing with. Does that make any conservative typing a hypocrite?

    DiCaprio’s a liberal, and that label you seem to have a problem with so I guess it’s easy to take a few quotes from an article about a rich, Hollywood actor buying the latest green sports car and sling mud at the guy. Hey, at least he’s doing something, even if it is getting the word out. Think the rapidly growing Chinese middle class doesn’t want cars? Think that volatility will deplete the market of oil, causing prices to soar and every product we eat, use, and drink to become more expensive? I agree with your employer, long-term policy is needed. Though I am unsure how pro-oil sands and anti-EPA articles support the mission statement.

    And c’mon Josh, that paragraph about conservatives and skyscrapers was awfully dumb. Can you honestly defend it? Besides, I liked your article today and you didn’t even have to bash “liberals.”

    And, Leo drives an American-designed, American-made (literally) car from a small startup American car company. That makes him pro-environment, pro-small business, and pro-American to me. But it’s all how you spin it.

  4. I never said your comments hold no weight. Nice try. My point was that maybe (just maybe) you can cut me a little slack if I’m not adding footnotes and checking in with the Library of Congress for posts on Kevin Smith or Leo. And perhaps you can cut me some slack if I don’t respond to EACH of your “points” because if I wanted to get in a tit-for-tat with people I would have just gone to any number of other well-known blogs and done that.

    It would also be weird if I bashed my employer on my blog, don’t you think? And if I was smart I’d have ANOTHER blog that allowed me to say anything I wanted, on any subject, anonymously…

    Finally a.) My name isn’t “Josh” (Hence, douglasernstblog.com), and the paragraph on skyscrapers was perfectly fine. My point is that liberal environmentalists see man as the problem, and conservatives see the entrepreneurial spirit inside man as the answer. You may not like the examples I used, but the underlining point is sound. Liberals would rather we do with less (i.e., leave a smaller footprint), while conservatives look for creative solutions to environmental problems. See Clearing the Air : How the People of Virginia Improved the State’s Air and Water Despite the EPA.

  5. Eh, I get tired too. Doug became Josh. I had to laugh at that one.

    I can’t cut you slack. If you make a comment, stand behind it. You seem like a good, honorable guy, but on some points, mis-guided. Maybe you’re off about DiCarprio, or maybe he’s a clown who deserves your ire–but make sure you know your shot before tearing the guy down.

    I liked both the solutions–do more with less (efficiency) and creative solutions to environmental problems. What now?

    How about we fund solar, wind, and geothermal AMERICAN start-ups instead of hoping “clean” coal and tar sands are the holy grail of US energy independence? That’s +1 to small business and US technology advantage.

    It’s no scam, all three technologies exist. Put some small businesses to work, and blaze a path towards the future. That isn’t some vacant platitude. China is leading the green revolution, and the “why” is interesting. They know they can’t build out their infrastructure fast enough, so why not decentralize and reduce the need for natural resources feeding endless power plants. Our infrastructure is old and deteriorating (see most of California), and solar and wind would decrease the need to build more plants and tear up more of the coal producing states.

    Sustainability isn’t a bad word. True, there are green kooks and charlatans out to make a buck, but an energy-independant US should be a goal. Coal and natural gas and tar sands will last a while, but at what cost?

    Again, why not BOTH solutions. They need not be mutually exclusive.

    • You know that I’m not against solar energy, right? I just don’t believe the government should pick winners and losers. Solar makes sense—in certain areas. Wind farms probably make sense—in certain areas. But many alternative energy “solutions” have been subsidized for decades to the tunes of tens-of-billions of (taxpayer) dollars and the payoff has been…lacking. I don’t believe any industry should be subsidized. They should all be given a fair shake. The problem is that environmentalists generally hate everything the modern world runs on. No to nuclear. No to coal. No to gas. It’s a joke. They see glorified windmills as the answer (glorified windmills that need to be powered by electricity when the wind doesn’t blow). They never think beyond stage one (e.g, hey, who knew if we subsidize ethanol it might impact the price of food.)

  6. Those are the kooks I was referring to. While “green” is a good thing, it’s not the only thing, nor the most important. Sustainability and energy dependency should be goal #1. Stop paying Arab princes to fund their obscene palaces while keeping their people in the 12th century and susceptible to false mullahs promising an ample supply of virgins for blowing up Westerners who have military bases in the “holy land” for the purpose of protecting oil interests.

    Alas, the price of raw-materials-based energy is much cheaper (probably an economies of scale problem since even Wal-Mart lowers their energy bill with solar on the roof), coal and gas are going to be the go-to solution for a long time to come. Also, energy companies make A LOT of money, and play a mean game of politics so there’s that angle.

    I agree government shouldn’t pick winners or losers, but I think they should keep the playing field honest and look long-term. Businesses rarely look past the next quarter and can’t be trusted to keep anyone but their shareholders happy, not the US economy at large.

    Many states have plenty of sun. Check population density maps–most people live on the coasts, and there’s plenty of wind along the oceans. The tides can produce power as well. Fascinating stuff, but until it’s cheaper than burning coal and fusing atoms, there won’t be much traction unless the government thinks long term and starts preparing us for the day we run low (or can’t get access to) raw materials. By the time energy companies put some serious R&D into alternate energy, we’ll know that the raw materials are running out. By then we’ll be behind in the race, and probably not a superpower anymore, either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s