Multae Sententiae is Latin for "many thoughts". Free thinking leads to Enlightenment. Enlightenment leads to happiness...

The-Brights.net

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 CE

Uncovering hypocresy


Hypocresy

I read this in "The Art of Imperfection", the blog with the most beautiful name. At the same time it is an excerpt of an article that you can find in Common Dreams. As I said in my comment, I challenge the right to write something similar with respect to how the left thinks and lets see if there is at least 10% of their hypocrisy.

Here is the excerpt:

"Think about it for a second. Here's the way the extreme right-wingers - i.e., people you hear every day, all day, on TV and radio - have termed the debate:

If you fight for civil liberties, you're pro-criminal.
If you fight for justice in U.S. foreign policies, you're anti-American.
If you think people should have a right to determine their life partners and give them health benefits, you're pro-queer.
If you question the justice of a war based on false intelligence, you don't support the troops.
If you think the U.S. government should not be spying on its own citizens, you're pro-terrorist.
If you think the United States should not be torturing those it holds captive, you're coddling murderers.
If you think people should not be held indefinitely without trial or lawyers, you support terrorism.
If you think society should help the poor, you're soft on the shiftless.
If you want equal education for all, you're pro-black at the expense of whites.
If you want health care for all, you're a socialist.
If you think everyone has a right to a fair trial, you're soft on crime.
If you hope for a fairer tax system, you're for higher taxes.
If you want a government that helps people, you're for big government."

28 Comments:

Blogger Gindy said...

I don't think this is fair. Whether on the right or left these are extremes. It is true that people hold different degrees of opinions on different issues, but I would call this unfair stereotyping. Whether we are talking about the right or left I don't thinks this is a fair portrayal. Not all people on the right are KKK members. Not all people on the left are communist.

For instance, "If you think everyone has a right to a fair trial, you're soft on crime.". Really. That is your or her opinion of people on the right (and I think many on the list are suspect).

I wonder if the title "Uncovering hypocresy" might be the right title. (By the way, I am not slamming you, this is just my opinion).

7:07 PM  
Blogger Gindy said...

By the way, I hope your trip is going well.

7:08 PM  
Blogger Doctor Marco said...

Gindy:
This is an excerpt of a larger article, and obviously it can create some controversy. Unfortunately, many of the phrases listed in the excerpt are what the people who receive the messages from the right-wing media understand.

The fight between conservatives and progressives is the same in America and the same in Peru, the same in the modern world and the same in the classical times (optimates vs populares in the Roman world). The will to preserve an unfair status quo (billionaires and homeless co-existing in the same society) makes the conservative side always more hypocritical.

There is one more thing I wanted to tell you. I consider you a very smart guy. The fight is not against conservatives, it is against the fascists. Somehow, they have infiltrated the conservative movement and are using it to achieve their goals. The only ones in the right who seem to have acknowledged that are some of the libertarians. You should be with us, against the fascists that will end up chewing up my freedom and your freedom. Read this article (a conservative viewpoint), it is very interesting:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html

My vacations are going fine, thanks

7:29 PM  
Blogger Gindy said...

I appreciate the response and want to respond. I am up against the clock, so I will think of a response in the mean time. I will have to check out the whole article as well. I think the link is there. Thanks.

9:07 PM  
Blogger TOKilla said...

Hmmm...I didnt realize that the US Constitution was hypocritical.

9:45 PM  
Blogger ManicBlu said...

I haven't read the article yet but certainly will later. But, the list is exactly what I see and hear everyday. I have no more patience with what I see as facist thinking. I tried diplomacy before the election and it didn't work. I am interested in seeing any Conservative sites that are not extreme rightwing. Please give me the urls.
I am far left and although I have visitors to my blog that will deal harshly with rightwing zealots I do try to keep it to a low growl. Try visiting a rightwing blog and pointing out a real error they have made giving your source. I have and can tell you I've been called every name in the list and banned from commenting although I never curse or use bad language.
I've had it and although I'm only growling now this may change.

1:30 PM  
Blogger Puma said...

Dianne's experience mirrors my own. Very rarely do I ever get an honest open debate with a "conservative" (fascist) person - they tend towards ad hominem arguments and negative emotional responses - rarely do they ever present reasons for WHY they believe they are right, and rarely do they present sources for their claims.
Gindy, I think Marco's post was simply pointing out the methods the current American administration is using to try and discredit those who do not toe their line, and listing them that way highlights a pattern.

4:28 PM  
Blogger R said...

Once again, I love reading this blog. And FYI I added you to my links!

12:39 AM  
Blogger Greg Stephens said...

It is a fairly scary situation when culture limits free speech. It is really more effective than governments doing it and just as bad. It is also a lot harder to draw peoples attention to and to do something about.

I hate linking to my own site on other people's blogs but: have you seen this? it is kinda freaky

1:00 AM  
Blogger WhyNot said...

To Greg:

"It is a fairly scary situation when culture limits free speech. It is really more effective than governments doing it and just as bad. It is also a lot harder to draw peoples attention to and to do something about."

You're exactly right, Greg. It's the biggest danger by far, and I have a feeling that it's taking place partly because of some predispositions (meaning lots of ppl who for decades have held back cuz the political climate didn't allow them to come out with their view in a *cool* way), and partly because the great Bush propaganda machine actually manages to instill this culture change. So that, like you say, loss of freedom of speech doesn't appear to be directly ordered by the authorities, but is simply the voice of the masses.

6:49 AM  
Blogger Doctor Marco said...

To Dianne and Sarah:

I do not have much time blogging, however I already had a negative experience when I posted a comment in a blog form the right. I commmented in a post regarding the number of vacation days in France and Germany (January 6, 2005) asking a question about what was wrong with long vacation periods. An individual named Roman Wanderer replied the following:

"Is Rong to work long houRs, is very Rong. Is good to have ah bReak from 1 to 5, to go eat a nice lanch. Then, is good to have smoke bReaks every 10 minutes, is very important for the health."

Obviously he was trying to imitate how people who speak Spanish as their first language have their language. So the question is. Is this the same pattern of behavior you have identified?

One more thing, to answer Dianne´s request. I usually find some interesting and thoughtful conservative posts in www.antiwar.com

To Greg and Whynot:

I agree with you both

To Rhonda:

Thanks for your words, as you probably saw, you already have a place in my blog.

To Gindy:

I am interested in your opinion about the article I suggested you.

7:59 AM  
Blogger Puma said...

Roman Wanderer appears to making an lame joke, either that or he was deprived of three quarters of his education. I don't quite see how it targets Spanish accents though. To me he just looks boring.

Greg, I believe that in the US, most people are far more liberal than they even realize. Liberalism has become mainstream in fact. Most people want good public schools, want clean air and water, a living wage, most Americans are pro-choice, they like Social Security, and they want corporations to be held accountable for the damage they do. Most Americans do not want their children to die in unnecessary wars. I believe the reason we are seeing such a conservative backlash, is precisely because of that. They fear the change that has already happened - and express it the way fearful people do: in the form of fear-mongering, as well as bigotry and xenophobia .. they are simply grasping at the familiar.

10:39 AM  
Blogger Gindy said...

"This is an excerpt of a larger article, and obviously it can create some controversy"
I am OK with controversy. But, I think you know that already.

"The will to preserve an unfair status quo (billionaires and homeless co-existing in the same society) makes the conservative side always more hypocritical."
I am not sure if you are referring to the US or Peru. But, I don't think many conservatives in America want to maintain some sort of unfair status quo or keep people down so to speak. America offers more opportuinity than anywhere else in the world. As evidenced by the immigration rate in America.

"The fight is not against conservatives, it is against the fascists"
I believe this goes for both sides. For instance, I believe the left tries to control free speech and behavior as well. They also try to create certain protected groups who have special privilages above all other citizens. For instance, I am Jewish, but I am against hate crime laws (thought crime). If someone murders me, what does my family care if the murder was for my wallet or because my religion. Murder should be punished the same no matter what the reason. Affirmative action is there to only help those with certain color skin or a certain gender. Poor white males don't get the same benfits as poor minority males. That to me is un-American. Are we equals are or are we not equals in America. What is the point of a 14th Amendment if it is ignored. And if we want to have different classes or citizens in the eyes of the law, should we not change the Constitution to reflect that?


Tokilla said: “I didnt realize that the US Constitution was hypocritical”

I am not saying Tokilla is right or wrong. But, I am curious what this statement is referring to specifically.
I myself am a staunch believer in the Constitution. This document was created so that government can't abuse it's power and unfairly confiscate the property and earnings of it's citizens. As well this document comes with a Bill of Right. That is where many of our idividul rights come from. It is one of the greatest documents ever written (in my opinion).


Diane Said “But, the list is exactly what I see and hear everyday. I have no more patience with what I see as facist thinking. I tried diplomacy before the election and it didn't work.”
Obviously I disagree that the list is a fair portrayal of conservatives as a whole . But, I don’t have any patience for facist thinking either. I just want to make sure that we are not confusing constitutional thinking that carries out the will of the people with fascism. For instance, homosexual marriage has never been legal in the history of the United States (or maybe the world for all I know). Every time citizens had the chance to vote on leaving marriage the way it has been for thousands of years it has won overwhelmingly. Even here in liberal California.. Therefore is it fascist to not redefine the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman? . Or is it facist for a tiny minority to force it’s ways on the majority. And if you believe that homosexual marriage should be allowed, then what about marriage between one man and three women or between two sisters. If you think this is a redicules comparison, who gets to decide how far marriage can be redefined. Whose standard for marriage should apply. Right now Mormans are suing for the same right to marry multiple wives. Should we allow that?

One more. If I ran a Bible store, should I have to hire a man with a beard who wears a dress and lipstick? The reason I ask is because that is a law the left is trying to pass in California. Is that not fascism to force me to hire someone I don’t want, and would probably hurt my sales and my odds at success? Whether you think it is right or wrong morally, legally should I have (have to) to hire him?

I also have seen just as many ruthless left wing sites as I have right wing. There are enough extremist on all sides. Extreme opinions are not always bad or evil opinions. I am an extremist when it comes to following the original intent of the Constitution along with all of the Amendments (Although, there are a few amendments I would like to repeal or reword).

Sarah: “Very rarely do I ever get an honest open debate with a "conservative" (fascist) person - they tend towards ad hominem arguments and negative emotional responses - rarely do they ever present reasons for WHY they believe they are right, and rarely do they present sources for their claims. “
Your statement seems to equate conservative with dishonest fascist. That is a shame. It seems to be the exact hipocracy that this post is supposed expose. All consevatives are this or all conservatives are that.

You say “current American administration is using to try and discredit those who do not toe their line”.
Aren’t you trying to discredit all conservatives for not toeing your line. If they have different ideas than you then they must be dishonest fascist.

You also say that: “most people are far more liberal than they even realize”
I disagree. I think Americans are far more centrist than either of the two extremes are willing to admit. But, the beauty of the constitution is that each state is allowed to make laws that fit their constituents needs. Some states will be more liberal and some more conservative. Let the voters decide.

Greg: How’s it going? You say “It is a fairly scary situation when culture limits free speech”
When has culture not limited free speech. If you use your free speech to encourage the murder of all Christians should you not be rediculed. Or do you think people should just have to listen and then say that is very interesting? Often free speech has a price. The left wants to control as much as the right. The left are the ones that have set up a process for thought crimes. Some examples could be hate crimes or harassment claims at work for saying a dress looks very nice. Whether you agree with the laws or not , are these not examples of limiting free speech. Or limiting religious expression in the public arena. When the Constitution was written there was free expression of religion everywhere. Now adays put up a Christmas tree in public and risk being sued by the ACLU (I probably could have chosen a better example with the religious issue).

Dr. Marco: the Roman Wander is Italian. My guess is she has an accent as well. I don’t think she was making fun of Spanish. I am not sure what that post was referring to . My guess is you got that off my site so you can let me know.

I am having trouble with typing endurance today so I am going to wrap it up. I hope this comment is taken in the spirit of discussion. I have respect for all of your opinons. Thanks.

4:12 PM  
Blogger Gindy said...

By the way, I will have to look at the article in a bit. I like Lew though. But, his articles are always complete and take time to read. In the mean time I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the issue.

4:46 PM  
Blogger TOKilla said...

Gindy: I was trying to be sarcastic (I havent been able to master typing my tone yet). I was referring to :
"If you think the U.S. government should not be spying on its own citizens, you're pro-terrorist.
If you think the United States should not be torturing those it holds captive, you're coddling murderers.
If you think people should not be held indefinitely without trial or lawyers, you support terrorism.
If you think everyone has a right to a fair trial, you're soft on crime."

These claims are in direct conflict with Amendments 4,5 and 8, and I think its safe to say that the Constitution is the trump card here. Personally, I love the Constitution. It has survived for over 200 years when other countries have revolts every year. I also like its ability to change and accomodate changing times.

11:55 PM  
Blogger Gindy said...

"I love the Constitution. It has survived for over 200 years when other countries have revolts every year"

Fair enough. It was an off the cuff question. I didn't want to make a comment about it unless I knew what it was referring to. I can't argue with what you said.

I don't agree that it is against the afore mentioned amendments for the sole reason that these people aren't Americans subject to our constitution (in my opinion). I also don't think the Geneva Conventions applys to them as well because they are un-uniformed terrorist. But, as a moral issue we should not torture or mistreat (for the most part) prisoners period.

"I also like its ability to change and accomodate changing times."
I agree, but I would like to see it changed using the Amendment process. I am bothered by the fact that people just think they can pass a law in violation of the the original intent of the Constitution and Amendments. For instance, why does it take an Amendment to make alcohol illegal and yet they feel they can just pass anti-drug laws whenever they want (without an Amendment). I am for strict drug control, but on the state level. I am for just about anything on a state level. Thanks for the clarification. Any time the Constitution is brought up I tend to go on a tangent.

1:10 PM  
Blogger birdwoman said...

As a fiscal conservative social liberal, and not well versed in constitutional arguments, I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer this challenge. I believe this is how I hear the left - be it the opinion pages in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the speeches at any awards show or concert, or the slant of many ABC/NBC/CBS stories - portray the right:

If you fight against favoritism based on race or sex, you're a racist or a misogynist

If you fight for US foreign policy to be strong and preventitive, you're a war-monger

If you're okay with "under god" and crosses in flags, you're a whacky christian and you're trying to destroy church/state separation

If you think that you pay enough taxes, you're greedy

Likewise if you think Social Security needs reform.

If you think that torture of terrorists in certain situations is okay, you're evil

If you think businesses should have less restrictions and be able to make and spend money as they please, you're on the take

If you think that the second amendment applies to all citizens, you're a gun nut and/or you support gun crime

If you think that there should be penalties for frivolous lawsuits, or any other limit on non-punitive damages, you're a tool of the corporate machine

If you question any situation involving a minority, you're full of hate

If you believe in welfare reform, you're cruel and heartless



In short, all emotional reactions. So I'm guessing that I'm not doing a good job of this, since none of the original list was "emotional", though it was quite derogatory.


(*)>

2:47 PM  
Blogger Gindy said...

Birdwoman, well said. That was basically my orginal thoughts on the issue. I like the list not because this is the way to describe any one group but because it makes a point.

8:11 PM  
Blogger Doctor Marco said...

Irrational polarization is never a good thing. What should be encouraged is to really know what left and right mean. And also the subdivisions of them. Everyone has a place in the political spectrum. Norberto Bobbio has a nice book that explains very clearly that, I will post about it in the near future... when the beach stops tempting me.

10:34 PM  
Blogger Puma said...

Have you forgotten? We are a nation of immigrants. There is a commonly-held understanding of the Constitution that basically says: "The mutuality of legal obligation approach demands that when the United States government imposes legal obligations on aliens, it should in turn confer legal rights on those individuals."

I do not see morality as something you can be "for the most part." Morality is by its very nature inclusive of all parts of our selves. We cannot be "mostly fair" or "mostly legal." We are either fair and legal, or we are not.

Any human being in our custody, arrested by our agents, becomes by that act subject to our laws, and with that, also should be afforded the rights that our Constitution describes as the rights of all men. We cannot claim legal exclusion simply because they were taken from another part of the world, nor can we claim moral superiority if we only apply our justice when it serves us. Our benefit, even our collective American benefit, is not the only goal. The goal of our democracy is (supposedly) the benefit of all mankind. So why do we find it so convenient to abandon this ideal, the moment we petulantly desire to win an argument? It isn't just about us, or just about us right now.

Gindy, I am interested as to your reasons why you are "for just about anything on a state level." What benefits and drawbacks do you see to this philosophy? What is your reasoning?

Also, when it comes to hate-crime law, the defining difference between someone murdering you because they are angry at you, or murdering you because you are Jewish, is that the latter generates a wider societal effect: it generates fear on the part of other Jewish people, and is in fact designed to create just that. The intent is to terrorize - it fits the definition of terrorism. Just as the rape of one woman instills fear in all women who learn of it, it is a means to control and intimidate a particular segment of society, and thus has the added racist/sexist element not present in the more pedestrian, "ordinary" murder.

5:53 PM  
Blogger Gindy said...

'Gindy, I am interested as to your reasons why you are "for just about anything on a state level." What benefits and drawbacks do you see to this philosophy? What is your reasoning?"

Great question. I am out of typing energy and also would like to think about my answer first. But, I want to respond to this. Great question.

I also want to respond to your hate crime comment. But, I will use the same excuse. Hopefully I can get to it a little later or tomorrow and I will be curious what you think.

By the way, "for just about anything on a state level." , may not have been the best choice of words. For instance, slavery was one of the down sides (an immoral downside)of states rights.

2:32 PM  
Blogger Gindy said...

"Gindy, I am interested as to your reasons why you are "for just about anything on a state level." What benefits and drawbacks do you see to this philosophy? What is your reasoning?"

The constitution was originally designed to form a federalist system

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governemnts are numerous and indefinite." James Madison

By sticking with the state system the people are able to decide what is best for themselves. For instance, let's take medical marijuana. Some states may choose to allow it and some may not. Right now it is illegal for everybody with a overly strong central governement. We have a huge debate with abortion right now. The left wants abortion on demand with out parental notification for children. The right wants to eliminate it outright for everyone and for every reason. Let states vote on what is best for them. Some will have it some will not. Some will ban late term abortions and some will keep them legal.

Another advantage is more parties in the American system. When the central government is too strong we tend to have two parties. But when 50 state have control of their domestic lives all sorts of parties pop up in states with all sorts of new ideas. There were many more parties in existence in the old days. Back then it was the members of the state governments that were the super stars. They were the one that affected their lives the most. Now it is the congress men and women all the way over there in Washington that are the stars.

One final advantage. With states rights you effectively have 50 little labortories trying different methods of improving their citizens lives. When one state comes up with a great idea the rest can observe and copy if it works.

Some disadvantages. Slavery for instance had to be remedied through a war followed by a constitutional amendment instead of a simple law passed. Really there shouldn't be federal highways according to the constituton. But, it is hard to argue their benefit to society. (I am sure there are many others)


"The intent is to terrorize - it fits the definition of terrorism. Just as the rape of one woman instills fear in all women who learn of it, it is a means to control and intimidate a particular segment of society, and thus has the added racist/sexist element not present in the more pedestrian, "ordinary" murder.:

I agree with what you are saying. But, rape is not a hate crime in the eyes of the law. Neither should murder be. I feel we should increase the punishment for murder across the board if the sentence is not heavy enough (same with rape). Make all murders think twice. Frankly, I think they will do it anyway. By the way. Under a state system each state will decide about hate crimes and the punishment themselves.

I don't think this is the best explanation. But, it sort of conveys what I am getting at. I know that some people are comfortable with it and some people are not. If you have an opinion I would be interested to hear.

11:39 PM  
Blogger TOKilla said...

(I started writing this post before Gindy had posted so bear with me if theres repitition)

The United States is so big that sometimes the states must have to right to govern themselves. Take speed limits for example, they used to be set by the federal government (55 mph on highways, I beleive) While a speed limit on 55 makes sense on a crowded LA highway during rush hour, it is illogical out in Montana. So the states were given the right o make speed limits and states like Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, etc have speed limits around 80 if at all. States rights makes sure that everyone gets the best deal, as well as serving as a checks and balance program for the national government.

There are also disadvantages to states rights. Back in the early days of our country, the colonies would impose taxes and tariffs on each other. In order to unify, the national government took away that right and we now have free trade through the "colonies"

And now a word on the Civil War: The Civil War was not fought over slavery. The main causes were states rights (to tax goods) and preserving the southern way of life. The Emancipation Proclamation was not signed until 1863 - halfway through the war. Lincoln did this to gain the support of Great Britain, France and Russia, knowing that they would not support the side that supported slavery. If you think about it, the Emancipation Proclamation meant nothing because the South considered itself a separate country and the EP only freed Union slaves (which there were none of)

Murder in any form should be punished to the full extent of the law no matter what the reason is. Establishing a motive only justifies the crime (to an extent). "Well hes very anti-semetic so at least is was logical to kill a Jew" Yet he is still committing murder. Yes killing a Jew instills fear in other jews, so does killing a person instill fear in other people. I recognize that the jew was killed solely because he is jewish and the regular person could have done anything to upset his murderer, but i still feel unsafe around violence, so any murder is therefore a hate crime. However this whole Jew/Regular argument is moot because murder in general is bad and trying to characterize it gives it more attention than it deserves.

12:12 AM  
Blogger Gindy said...

A peru article I ran across. Thought you might be interested.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050228/ap_on_sc/peru_earth_drawings

2:36 AM  
Blogger Doctor Marco said...

Peru is full of remains of ancient cultures that keep appearing all the time. What I learned in schoolbooks is now obsolete.

5:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Marco, here is what people on the right hear from the left…

If you say the ACLU has gone over board you’re a fascist.
Unless you agree with the French, Germans, Russians, and UN you’re a fascist.
If you fight to defend the traditional definition of marriage you’re a bigot.
If you defend the decision because it was based on the best intelligence you’re a liar and an idiot.
If you think the US government isn’t spying on its citizens you’re an ignorant back-woods hick.
If you think loud music, sleep deprivation, and scaring captives isn’t torture you’re a Nazi.
If you think combatants caught in Iraq, out of uniform, have waved their civil and Geneva rights you’re a Nazi.
If you think social programs have failed to help the poor you’re a self-righteous right winger.
If you think black parents have failed their children instead of the educational system you are a bigoted, red-neck, racist.
If you think federal health care will fail as badly as every other federal social program you’re a selfish, anti-black, anti-woman bigot.
If you think the trial lawyers are out of control you’re pro-business.
When you say you want a fairer tax system, you really mean you want to tax the poor.
If you think government is a necessary evil that should be minimized you’re anti-black, anti-woman, you’re anti-gay, your pro-business, and you’re an ignorant back-woods redneck.

Q

5:01 PM  
Blogger Doctor Marco said...

Why are you a right winger? You will earn my respect if you give me an intellectually solid and honest answer. Please do not respond by asking me why am I leftie. I will let you know when you answer me (If you want)

6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Marco,

I responded via e-mail instead of via a post. It was long. I consider it to be between us. My e-mail address is xxxxxxx@ktc.com.

Do I need to resend?

Q

10:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page tracking
Dell Laptops Computers
Content copyright protected by Copyscape website plagiarism search