Do As I Say, Not As I Do, Case No. 48 -- and 49

Earlier this week, we discussed former Vice President Al Gore's hypocrisy. Today, courtesy of the Los Angeles Times (with a a hat tip to Instapundit), the glaring eye of "what's good for the goose is good for the ganger" is turned upon California's top politicians. And across the pond, the Evening Standard unloads on Prince "Ban Big Macs."

Reports the L.A. Times ...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein offers plenty of tips on how California households can combat global warming, such as carpooling and running only a full dishwasher.

But one bit of information Feinstein declines to share is the number of times that she flew last year on her husband's Gulfstream jet, which burns much more fuel per passenger-mile than commercial airliners.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also has asked constituents to do their part to conserve energy -- including cutting summertime power consumption -- even though he takes to the skies on leased executive jets. ...

"There appears to be a discrepancy between calling on people to make personal reductions and using a private jet that exacerbates the problem," Clean Air Watch President Frank O'Donnell said.

Flying on a Gulfstream rather than an airliner is like driving a sport utility vehicle instead of riding a bus, O'Donnell and others say. A single cross-country round trip on a Gulfstream IV, or GIV, the model owned by Feinstein's husband, churns out about 83,000 to 90,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, experts say. By contrast, on a per capita basis, the average American produces 50,000 pounds from all activities in an entire year.

Nonetheless, Feinstein and Schwarzenegger intend to continue their noncommercial flying ways because their jobs demand a flexibility the airlines can't match, spokesmen say.

Then it goes on and on with the hooie about "carbon offsets," which even if it wasn't some scam designed to provide cover for "environmentalists" who don't want to fly with the great unwashed (i.e. me and you), may counter the emissions yet still does nothing about vainly wasting fuel.

And there's the inbred wonder that is Prince Charles, who says McDonald's should be banned as a public health threat. Meanwhile, he failed to check his own food line's nutritional value.

"... it was pointed out that the company's signature Big Mac contains fewer calories, fats and salt than some products in his own organic Duchy Originals food range.

How they compare ...

His Cornish pasty contains 264 calories per 100g compared to the burger's 229 calories, and 5.5g of saturated fat as opposed to the Big Mac's 4.14g."

There's some debate about the calorie count of a Big Mac, but still, check out the fat grams. Amanda from Chicago gets right to the point in the comments section.

I love the irony in Charles' comment ... "It is up to consumers to decide whether to buy them," concerning the pastry. Why can't consumers also decide if they want a Big Mac? I'm so glad the US doesn't have to deal with aristocracy ... we just get Sean Penn instead.

And Congress.