Hypocrisy or Just irony?
Vicky Osterweil wrote a book, In Defense of Looting. Hailed as "A fresh argument for rioting and looting as our most powerful tools for dismantling white supremacy," the book serves as a an explanation as to why it's okay for people to riot and loot and pillage. On the cover page is a warning. "The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book without permission is a theft of the author's intellectual property." It ends with "Thank you for your support of the author's rights." Nice double standard. "It's good and right to steal from and destroy others, but don't touch my stuff."
What's Right Is … Irrelevant
House Speaker Pelosi threatened to impeach Trump or Barr if the Senate sought to push through a Supreme Court nomination before Biden took office. It's the principle of the thing, you see. If we can't get what we want, we force it using any dirty trick at all. Oh, you may not recognize it; it's called "playing politics." And then there was Ruth Bader Ginsburg's last wish, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." Trump called it a false story, but I'm wondering about how that was supposed to work. If Trump gets reelected, we should honor her wish and leave the seat vacant for four more years? I think it's clear the she was trying to restack the court along political lines, currently unnecessary given the fact too many "conservative judges" aren't very conservative anymore.
The New Justice System
We have to come up with some new phrases that accurately reflect "our truth." The original was "innocent until proven guilty" which was in distinction to most of the rest of the world's "guilty until proven innocent." Of course, that was then; this is now. So while we've headed more into the latter, "guilty until proven innocent," I think we've even moved beyond. There is "guilty even if proven innocent" (like the officers in the Rodney King case) and "guilty because we said so." It appears that for some the predisposition of "guilty beyond any exoneration" is applied to all white people and to all police officers of any color. All part of the new "Justice means exactly and only what we say." As demonstrated in Louisville.
Just Embrace Your New COVID Overlords
I'm still trying to figure this guy out. Anthony Fauci complained this week about the "divisive state" of U.S. society and how it is a roadblock to our pandemic response. What does he mean? He specified individuals who are "taking sides" on public health measures. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if an individual listens to the government and agrees to wear a mask, abide by social distancing, etc., that person is by definition "taking sides." He or she is siding with the government. On the other hand, America is built on individualism and equality, so it would appear that Fauci is opposed to individualism and equality and would prefer sheep to individuals of equal value. "If we want America to be safe in this pandemic," he appears to say, "we will require unthinking, unreasoning, unquestioning followers … with me as the leader. What we need you to do is to exercise your individualism and equality by following what I say without having an opinion." (By the way, for an amusing little fact for those who "question the COVID reporting" -- you rotten devils, you -- on September 9 Arizona reported -2 deaths. Just saying.)
The Unavoidable Double Standard
In an acknowledged and blatant attempt to be obstructionist, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer invoked the "two-hour rule," a rule that says no Senate committee or subcommittee can meet after Senate has been in session for 2 hours or after 2PM. (Does that rule strike anyone else as completely arbitrary?) "The move," the report says, "was intended to retaliate against Republicans, who have agreed to vote on confirming President Trump's nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy." Schumer said, "We invoked the two-hour rule because we can't have business as usual when Republicans are destroying the institution." Schumer further obstructed proceedings on Tuesday by blocking a briefing by the official leading election security efforts after Schumer had long complained that they weren't having enough briefings about election security. But on Wednesday the Democrats revoked their own rule so they could hold their hearing on Trump's "missteps in responding to COVID-19." Simple obstructionism. And a pure double standard. "If the GOP does it, it's 'politics'. If we do it, it's 'principles'." Clearly, "We will not abide by our own rule if it doesn't suit us. We will have business as usual if the business is attempted to harm the president." Just like Pelosi above.
Not Sure What to Think
Wisconsin has declared a public health emergency due to a surge in COVID-19 among people ages 18-24. College age. They're going back to college. And, being the responsible young adults they are, they are partying and ignoring the rules. Now, the university I work for has mandated a 100% testing of all students, but I'm pretty sure that testing people who had no symptoms and hadn't been tested before wouldn't look like a surge, would it? And they tell us that it is the 55-and-older crowd that is in danger from COVID while the younger folks often go without symptoms. That can't be the case here, can it? I don't know. As we know, masks don't protect you from getting the virus, so everyone needs to wear it full time, including the governor apparently alone in the room in which he is making his announcement. You know, just in case a cameraman might have it and cough in his direction.
Cutting Edge
California Governor Newsom has decided that by 2035 you can no longer buy a gas-engine vehicle in California. The ramifications are staggering. The "gas station on every corner" industry will necessarily vanish along with all those jobs. I think it would be ironic if the major oil industry in California would continue to provide products for the rest of the country while the state sought to remove it from existence. It will be a major boost to the zero-emission car industry since it will force 36 million cars to be zero-emission. And currently California has neither the infrastructure or a plan to handle all those cars -- charging stations, hydrogen fuel, etc. No telling what the impact will be to tourism when tourists can't expect to drive into the state and get fuel. But, hey, it will certainly decrease California's emissions if a substantial number of Californians find they can no longer tolerate living there. Would that make Newsom's plan "cutting edge"? (Yes, that's a pun.) It does sound a lot like China's plans to be "carbon neutral" by 2060. The primary difference is Californians voted Newsom in.
Another Dissenter
Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Capitol Hill Baptist is Mark Dever's church.) in Washington, D.C. is suing the mayor. The mayor banned worship gatherings over 100 people "even if held outdoors and even if worshippers wear masks and practice appropriate social distancing." CHBC meets outdoors, practices social distancing, and requires masks. The church claims that gathering the entire congregation "is a religious conviction." Area businesses and organizations can meet without the same restrictions. (This is Washington; think "racial justice demonstrations," etc.) The suit is over the mayor's violation of the 1st and 5th Amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Draw your own conclusions about the mayor's views since she appeared at a gathering of 10,000 protesters and praised them for showing up.
A Snapshot into Media Bias
The story in the Washington Post was about a Seattle police officer who rolled his bike over a protester's head and has been placed on leave. The story about the same mob from the Washington Times was about a Seattle police officer bashed in the head by a protester with a baseball bat. Looking over the headlines on a search page, which approach do you think got the most ink -- the battered officer (1) or the mean one (15)? The message is clear; it's okay to bash a police officer, but not to bounce a protester. (Note: I'd suggest neither is okay.)
Pointed Humor
Considering my "Unavoidable Double Standard" story above, perhaps the Babylon Bee aimed this headline at me: "Nation Surprised To Learn All Politicians Are Hypocrites." This one, on the other hand, is just funny: "Biden Forgets To Put On Clothes, Media Praises His Majestic Outfit."
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
7 comments:
Hypocrisy. I suggest looting a bookstore and stealing as many copies as you'd like.
Ginsburg's last wish demonstrates that she might have been a little fuzzy on the separation of powers concept. Of course her last wish was for the left to do exactly what people think she was arguing for. She was just as insistent that the court be packed along ideological lines and anyone on the right.
Once Truth goes, then so does the Justice system. "Do you swear to tell your truth...", just doesn't seem to fit as well. When something is established on the concept of Truth, it won't fare well once Truth is removed.
Of course it's a double standard, it's how they play the game. Honestly, it's refreshing to hear people on the right acknowledge the reality that the GOP holds the Presidency and the Senate and that it's simply the application of the political power conferred by the voters to confirm Trump's nominee. I'm pretty sure that the office of POTUS doesn't lose the powers vested in it before the and of the current trem of office.
Herd immunity, it's a wonderful thing. Of course young adults do stupid and irresponsible things, it goes right along with brain development timelines. !8-21 year olds can't keep from social distancing, but 16 year olds should vote, excellent idea.
California is going to destroy itself over this idiocy. They can't generate enough electricity to meet their current usage, but let's add more. I guess horses would always be an option.
There is clear discrimination against churches in this current climate. It's interesting to watch christians actions demonstrate who they really worship.
Again, of course the media is biased. It's literally beyond serious dispute at this point. Unless your bias agrees with the media's.
The Bee is way too close to reality at some points.
RE the SCOTUS pick. Prepare to see both adoption and Catholicism/Christianity portrayed in all sorts of negative ways.
I've spent time in Haitian orphanages, there is literally no circumstance where life in a Haitian orphanage is as good as life in an intact nuclear family.
Not too long ago I read that in post-apartheid South Africa the police are a mixture of corrupt and incompetent. Businesses such as retail stores hire armed guards to keep from getting looted. I'm afraid that is the future for the US. Twenty years away? Fifty? Not sure, but I really think that is coming.
Drug gangs attach their own communications equipment up high on existing cell towers in Mexico, and the communications companies (some US-based I think) tell their employees to just leave it alone to avoid deadly retaliation. That too is our future.
If our citizens had been voting heavily Republican for generations I do not think we would be in this ominous situation.
Dan, I hear you, but I'm just not listening. In your case, I hear, "What's good for the gander isn't good for the gander." You tell me to consider I might be wrong, but you won't do the same. "Oh, yes, I have," you'll tell me. So you figure I've always held these views? You figure the only way anyone can come to these conclusions is to be fed bad information and buy a lie? No, I wasn't always of this opinion. Through the years it has been moved and adjusted and crystalized because as far as I can tell it's the only position that makes sense. Now, you're perfectly happy to conclude, "I can make up my own sense" and I'm not going to try to stop you. You do it on your own. But I don't have to walk in that bog with you with one foot firmly planted on a banana peel and the other on ball bearings. You have no firm footing. Don't ask me to join you. And just admit it. It's not a "possibility that Stan is wrong" that you're suggesting, so stop offering that silly line. "Stan can't be right and I won't consider otherwise" is where you'll stand.
Anonymous, I don't consider the Republican party the savior of America even if I am one. I think this ominous situation we're in is because America has largely rejected God and is running headlong down that path. I think the voting in America has reflected American values … and they aren't much good anymore.
Oh, and as for your apocalyptic vision of anarchy in America, who's to say? I wouldn't argue with you.
I’ve seen a couple of people point out that marriage and adoption are two examples God uses to explain how He relates to us, yet both are likely to get trashed over the next few weeks.
Post a Comment