Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Tail-chasing
"So these idiots take out student loans to pay for classes in how to paint murals protesting student loans? It would be funny, except for one thing: Like everything in the world of higher education, it's all lavishly subsidized by your tax dollars."
--James Taranto
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Round and round
Taranto writes:
Of course, by publishing an article criticizing PPP for repeating the claim that Obama is Muslim in a poll asking if Obama is Muslim, Graham is himself repeating the claim that Obama is Muslim.
And guess what? We're guilty too! By writing an item pointing out that Graham is repeating the claim that Obama is Muslim when he criticizes PPP for repeating the claim that Obama is Muslim by running a poll asking if Obama is Muslim, we are also repeating the claim that Obama is Muslim.We're only reporting here... Oops, more repetition.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Hypocrisies
The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines hypocrisy as: 1, a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion, and/or 2, an act or instance of hypocrisy. It ascribes the origin of the word as from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage.
Many pundits and politicians are fond of hurling hypocrite, explicitly or implicitly, at opponents. In other words, he who does not practice what he preaches shouldn't preach that which he doesn't practice. What is lost in such assertions is context and temporality. For example, a prominent political figure advocates abstinence education; it is claimed (on tenuous grounds, incidentally, but irrelevant to the gedankenexperiment presented here), that this person did not observe abstinence twenty-some years ago. Therefore, either the individual should stop supporting abstinence education, or his or her behavior, decades ago, is fair game for investigation. Such is the "logic" of hypocrisy, or so it seems.
Author Gary Wills produced many conservative writings decades ago, and supported numerous Republican candidates; subsequently he had an awakening of sorts, and became a liberal pundit. Should Wills' writings and actions of forty years ago be held against him, as evidence of hypocrisy? There might be any number of reasons to decry Gary Wills' oeuvre, either early or late. However, he changed, in full public view (much to the distress of William F. Buckley and others), moving from right to left; Wills' transformation was not necessarily hypocrisy. An example of part-playing would have while pretending conservatism early on, and then opening the closet door into a light-infused room.
Regardless of anyone's previous behavior, she or he is innocent of hypocrisy if the current ethic is proclaimed in word and sought to be lived out in deed. Even if a person failed, through human weakness, to live up to the standard they accept, that individual is not necessarily a hypocrite. Look at the definition again: it is a feigning, a pretense. The way that we come to know that hypocrisy is not present in ourselves is when either our words and actions do correspond, or we sincerely confess our failures.
There is another kind of contemporary hypocrisy, that fulfills, and then surpasses the definition above. This is the case of rationalizing "previously" immoral behavior by claiming that moral standards have changed. The best known, and perhaps earliest authoritative assertion of this hypocrisy, is Henry XIII. He, or his lieutenants, invented a new "sin": marrying his brother's widow, Catherine. He desired rationalization of his desired annulment/divorce from Catherine, in order to marry Anne. Present rationalized, "previous" sins included fornication and adultery and related actions and conditions. However, to invoke a Nineteenth Century riddle:
So it is that there are current, infectious hypocrisies, including the new one that pretends to change moral law. However, those most often accused of feigning may be innocent of the charge, if not fully innocent of sin.
A temporary best-seller of a few years, What's the Matter with Kansas?, questioned why Kansans, and other Midwesterners, did not vote their own self-interest. Were these caricatures hypocrites? Of course, one could question the premise, unselfish voters. But, to complicate the matter, were Kansans conscious of their own "irrationality"? Slippery, isn't this hypocrisy stuff?
Many pundits and politicians are fond of hurling hypocrite, explicitly or implicitly, at opponents. In other words, he who does not practice what he preaches shouldn't preach that which he doesn't practice. What is lost in such assertions is context and temporality. For example, a prominent political figure advocates abstinence education; it is claimed (on tenuous grounds, incidentally, but irrelevant to the gedankenexperiment presented here), that this person did not observe abstinence twenty-some years ago. Therefore, either the individual should stop supporting abstinence education, or his or her behavior, decades ago, is fair game for investigation. Such is the "logic" of hypocrisy, or so it seems.
Author Gary Wills produced many conservative writings decades ago, and supported numerous Republican candidates; subsequently he had an awakening of sorts, and became a liberal pundit. Should Wills' writings and actions of forty years ago be held against him, as evidence of hypocrisy? There might be any number of reasons to decry Gary Wills' oeuvre, either early or late. However, he changed, in full public view (much to the distress of William F. Buckley and others), moving from right to left; Wills' transformation was not necessarily hypocrisy. An example of part-playing would have while pretending conservatism early on, and then opening the closet door into a light-infused room.
Regardless of anyone's previous behavior, she or he is innocent of hypocrisy if the current ethic is proclaimed in word and sought to be lived out in deed. Even if a person failed, through human weakness, to live up to the standard they accept, that individual is not necessarily a hypocrite. Look at the definition again: it is a feigning, a pretense. The way that we come to know that hypocrisy is not present in ourselves is when either our words and actions do correspond, or we sincerely confess our failures.
There is another kind of contemporary hypocrisy, that fulfills, and then surpasses the definition above. This is the case of rationalizing "previously" immoral behavior by claiming that moral standards have changed. The best known, and perhaps earliest authoritative assertion of this hypocrisy, is Henry XIII. He, or his lieutenants, invented a new "sin": marrying his brother's widow, Catherine. He desired rationalization of his desired annulment/divorce from Catherine, in order to marry Anne. Present rationalized, "previous" sins included fornication and adultery and related actions and conditions. However, to invoke a Nineteenth Century riddle:
"Father, ... if I should call this cow's tail a leg, how many legs would she have?""Why five, to be sure.""Why, no father; would calling it a leg make it one?"The hypocrisy of the Pharisees, as decried by Jesus, was a conscious act on their part. Importantly, not every Pharisee was a hypocrite; Paul, for example, really believed in the righteousness of the Pharisaic cause, even to justification of the stoning of Stephen. Paul was profoundly wrong, as he subsequently confessed, but he was not a hypocrite.
So it is that there are current, infectious hypocrisies, including the new one that pretends to change moral law. However, those most often accused of feigning may be innocent of the charge, if not fully innocent of sin.
A temporary best-seller of a few years, What's the Matter with Kansas?, questioned why Kansans, and other Midwesterners, did not vote their own self-interest. Were these caricatures hypocrites? Of course, one could question the premise, unselfish voters. But, to complicate the matter, were Kansans conscious of their own "irrationality"? Slippery, isn't this hypocrisy stuff?
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Deceptive & Illegal?
Congressman Ed Perlmutter (D, Colorado) sent a franked mailer to his District 7 constituents last week.
The cover reads: Important Facts on the Proposal to Eliminate Medicare. In just the title, deception is clear; there is no credible proposal to eliminate Medicare. And further deceptions permeate the flyer.
Inside, the heading reads: Ed Perlmutter: "I'll Fight to Save Medicare and Protect Seniors," and the text begins:
A key, real fact not mentioned in Perlmutter's flyer is that if nothing is done, Medicare will end itself, as it will run out of money. It will actually grow to dominate the entire Federal budget.
He also plays the "tax cut" game, writing:
We are in the midst of an economic recovery that is not happening anywhere fast enough -- the last thing that employers need if they are to grow their workforce is more taxes.
The Congressman needs to refund the cost of this political flyer to the Government as it is clearer and solely a campaign document. And, he need to acquaint himself with the facts.
The cover reads: Important Facts on the Proposal to Eliminate Medicare. In just the title, deception is clear; there is no credible proposal to eliminate Medicare. And further deceptions permeate the flyer.
Inside, the heading reads: Ed Perlmutter: "I'll Fight to Save Medicare and Protect Seniors," and the text begins:
Dear Neighbor,There is no Republican majority in Congress; the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate; Republicans hold only the House. And, precisely how are Republicans balancing the budget by burdening seniors? He doesn't say.
The Republican majority in Congress is proposing to end Medicare as we know it and balance the federal budget by shifting the burden to seniors. I promise to fight this effort.
A key, real fact not mentioned in Perlmutter's flyer is that if nothing is done, Medicare will end itself, as it will run out of money. It will actually grow to dominate the entire Federal budget.
He also plays the "tax cut" game, writing:
While we must make budget cuts, I refuse to make seniors pay so that millionaires and billionaires can get tax breaks.What Republicans have proposed as a means of saving Medicare (which must be done) will not affect any current seniors. None.
We are in the midst of an economic recovery that is not happening anywhere fast enough -- the last thing that employers need if they are to grow their workforce is more taxes.
The Congressman needs to refund the cost of this political flyer to the Government as it is clearer and solely a campaign document. And, he need to acquaint himself with the facts.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Inevitability
Ken Sweeney of Ricochet contends: Film, TV, and novels serve Conservatism regardless of ideology from creators.
"...who wants to see a TV show about the collective workers of the world uniting?""... to eradicate this menace [ghost infestation]. Who are you gonna call? Not the government."Subsidiarity is essential in any persuasive story. Isn't that what Sweeney is getting at?
"... the A-Team solv[es] the problems that government can’t"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)