Wow. Someone is saying what I've been thinking. I need a time-out. A news blackout. Twenty-four hours of nothing but knitting, cooking, and Project Runway marathons. Okay, maybe some cleaning, too.
I turned the computer off for a WHOLE DAY this weekend. No blogging, no Facebook, no (gulp) e-mail, nothing. Just church, knitting, cooking, and NFL football. And a little bit of cleaning. And you know what? I didn't miss anything. The news wasn't that important. The world went on. Gas prices continued to fall. No one solved any financial crises.
Sometimes I think I'm going to take Kona as my role model. Does he have any clue what's going on around him? I doubt it. He knows when it's time to get up, when it's time to go out, when it's time to play, and when it's time to eat. When he gets into the car, he puts his front legs on the car seat and waits patiently for a boost, trusting completely that it will come along. Sometimes he has hardships - he gets squirted with the hose or loses his Nylabone under the couch or is forced to heel rather than tearing off after squirrels. But he shakes off his adversity and continues on, tail wagging. And he's about the happiest creature I think I've ever seen.
I'm not saying that we should all resort to eating mulch and bugs, although Kona seems to enjoy it. But it does seem like a great national time-out may be called for. For my part, I think I'm going to turn the computer off again this weekend. And maybe clean some.
P.S. Speaking of the other guy, I think he's finally lost it.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Weekend Update
Someone dear to me is very upset that I posted a link to the YouTube video showing Farrakhan alluding to Obama as the Messiah. Which shows once again that I should always explain WHY I'm posting something, not just throw it up there with a reference to it being creepy. (Side note: the YouTube guy who posted it seems a little creepy, too.) Especially when it's to someone as incendiary and controversial as Farrakhan.
Here's the deal: I find referring to anyone alive today in Messianic terms deeply disturbing. Obama may be the best thing to happen to this country since the SEC (that's the Southeastern Conference, not the Securities and Exchange Commission, you Philistines), but the Messiah, he ain't. In fact, given that he's a Christian, I hope he's as disturbed by those references as I am. He's not even John, Paul, George, and that other guy. He's a politician. He may have good ideas. He may be able to do great things for this country. He may be incredibly successful. He may even be the next George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, or [insert your favorite politician's name here]. But he's not our savior. He's not even the Beatles. He's a guy who thinks he can do a better job at running the country than the other candidates out there. Can he? I have my doubts, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Hero worship is a quick way to disillusionment. No one is worth your worship other than the true Messiah. Don't make the mistake of thinking that anyone is somehow anything other than human, flawed, and fallen.
I'm so ready for this election to be over.
Here's the deal: I find referring to anyone alive today in Messianic terms deeply disturbing. Obama may be the best thing to happen to this country since the SEC (that's the Southeastern Conference, not the Securities and Exchange Commission, you Philistines), but the Messiah, he ain't. In fact, given that he's a Christian, I hope he's as disturbed by those references as I am. He's not even John, Paul, George, and that other guy. He's a politician. He may have good ideas. He may be able to do great things for this country. He may be incredibly successful. He may even be the next George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, or [insert your favorite politician's name here]. But he's not our savior. He's not even the Beatles. He's a guy who thinks he can do a better job at running the country than the other candidates out there. Can he? I have my doubts, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Hero worship is a quick way to disillusionment. No one is worth your worship other than the true Messiah. Don't make the mistake of thinking that anyone is somehow anything other than human, flawed, and fallen.
I'm so ready for this election to be over.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Great Debate 08, Pt. 2
I had two head-snap-back moments in the debates recently. The first came in the vice presidential debate, during which Joe "Zoom! Teeth Whitening System" Biden said that Obama wants to make it possible for bankruptcy judges to alter not just the interest rate on mortgages of those filing bankruptcy but also the principal. The second came last night, when John "My Friends" McCain said that he wants to enable the Treasury Secretary to buy up mortgages and bargain the principal down to the amount the house is actually worth, not the amount of the mortgage. (Side note: As Glenn Beck has mentioned, this may be a moot point - the bailout bill may already grant the Treasury Secretary this power, among others. In fact, I would like to propose a resolution that from henceforth, the Treasury Secretary shall be known to all and sundry as He Who Controls The Wind and The Seas.)
My friends... have we lost our collective marbles? I know times are tough. I know a lot of us are concerned about where we're going from here on out. I'm less worried about myself - God willing, I have a couple of productive decades left before I have to look into the possibility of taking a job as a Walmart greeter - than for my parents and their generation, for whom retirement may be nearly impossible at this point. In fact, I think any honest investment advisor, when asked what one should do with one's savings in today's environment, would shake his head and say, "Dunno. Have you looked at investing in rocks? Because I hear they're the next big thing."
And I know - boy, do I know - that a lot of us bought houses at the top of the market and are having trouble affording and/or selling them now. But here's the thing: once you start giving judges or the legislature the power to renegotiate private contracts, you are on your way to one of a few things, none of which are desirable and some of which are horrifying. Socialism is one - or more specifically, a system of government in which the power to govern is not granted to the state by the people but is granted by the state to the people. A terrible credit market is another - yes, worse than the one we have now, if that's possible. What bank in its right mind will want to lend money to you if you can turn around a few years later and say, "You know, I don't think I should pay you the whole $100,000. I think my house is only worth $90,000. So I'll pay you that." And if you can get a judge or a government agency to agree with you, the bank has to eat $10,000, on top of attorney's fees and all kinds of other expenses.
I humbly submit that if we go this route, mortgages for first-time homebuyers will be nearly impossible to obtain. After all, almost all first-timers have to purchase mortgage insurance - a policy against the buyer's default on the mortgage. The price on that will go through the roof and become almost unobtainable if the chances and consequences of default go up. Banks - who have to make money somehow - will raise interest rates, charge more fees... that is, do anything within the law to ensure that if you do run crying to the judge, they're still going to emerge from the deal ahead. And the government, whose intention was always to get more and more people into their own homes rather than leases, consequences be dammed, will see our population returning to apartments in droves.
Set aside for a moment whether that's actually a bad thing, and whether anyone who has a mortgage actually owns their home or not. (Anyone with a passing knowledge of real estate law will tell you that you only own part of the title to your home, but we can discuss Norman legal concepts another day.) The larger problem with all the talk about bailouts and afforability and decreasing equity and Wall Street greed is that it ignores a basic point - any contract you make is both a gamble and a tradeoff. When you sign a contract to buy a house or a car, you're gambling that you will like the house or car just as much in five years as you do today; that it will meet your needs; and that its value to you approaches the price you've agreed to pay. You're trading off the assurance inherent in agreeing on a price for the fact that if you waited a month or two more the price could go down (but it could go up). You make that gamble aware of the tradeoff and having satisfied yourself that it's worth it - that you're getting something at least approaching equal to what you're giving up.
If the government can then step in and tell you that, in fact, what you gave up is not equal to what you got - not even close - are you ever going to be willing to gamble? Will anyone be? Will our system be able to handle it?
Here's the thing: fair market value is a simple concept but a powerful one. It's just what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller will accept in an open market. If I bought my house for $100,000 a year ago, and it's worth $50,000 now, I hate to admit it, but, absent fraud, my house was worth $100,000 a year ago and is worth $50,000 now. Because a year ago, the guy I bought my house from could have sold it to someone else for $100,000. So the only arguments you can make, given this, that we should be rescued from making the gamble we made are: (1) we were too stupid to recognize that we were getting ripped off, or (2) the concept of fair market value doesn't work. If we're willing to retain capitalism and the free market as the basis for the American economic system, I think we have to reject (2), so we're stuck with (1). (Rejecting our current economic system is a question for another time.)
So I ask you - are you happy to be told that you're stupid? Because honestly, that's what both parties are saying right now. You're too dumb to know what's good for you, so we have to step in and fix this problem for you. Never mind that the cure may kill you.
Americans, let's man up. We got the mortgages we have because we wanted extra money to rehab the house. Or we wanted to live in a certain area. Because we believed that we could afford the monthly payments, as long as the interest rate didn't change and we kept our jobs and kept getting raises and didn't need to buy a car or a washing machine or a furnace in the next five years. We made a gamble. Believe me, I've been there. I've made that calculation. Sometimes I came out on the right side. Sometimes I had to pay, and pay dearly, for making a bad one. But we all have to pay. So let's suck it up, admit that greed doesn't begin and end on Wall Street, and keep making our payments. As Polonius said, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." (Never mind what happened to Polonius. Just don't hide behind the curtains when the homocidally insane son of the dead king is around.)
My friends... have we lost our collective marbles? I know times are tough. I know a lot of us are concerned about where we're going from here on out. I'm less worried about myself - God willing, I have a couple of productive decades left before I have to look into the possibility of taking a job as a Walmart greeter - than for my parents and their generation, for whom retirement may be nearly impossible at this point. In fact, I think any honest investment advisor, when asked what one should do with one's savings in today's environment, would shake his head and say, "Dunno. Have you looked at investing in rocks? Because I hear they're the next big thing."
And I know - boy, do I know - that a lot of us bought houses at the top of the market and are having trouble affording and/or selling them now. But here's the thing: once you start giving judges or the legislature the power to renegotiate private contracts, you are on your way to one of a few things, none of which are desirable and some of which are horrifying. Socialism is one - or more specifically, a system of government in which the power to govern is not granted to the state by the people but is granted by the state to the people. A terrible credit market is another - yes, worse than the one we have now, if that's possible. What bank in its right mind will want to lend money to you if you can turn around a few years later and say, "You know, I don't think I should pay you the whole $100,000. I think my house is only worth $90,000. So I'll pay you that." And if you can get a judge or a government agency to agree with you, the bank has to eat $10,000, on top of attorney's fees and all kinds of other expenses.
I humbly submit that if we go this route, mortgages for first-time homebuyers will be nearly impossible to obtain. After all, almost all first-timers have to purchase mortgage insurance - a policy against the buyer's default on the mortgage. The price on that will go through the roof and become almost unobtainable if the chances and consequences of default go up. Banks - who have to make money somehow - will raise interest rates, charge more fees... that is, do anything within the law to ensure that if you do run crying to the judge, they're still going to emerge from the deal ahead. And the government, whose intention was always to get more and more people into their own homes rather than leases, consequences be dammed, will see our population returning to apartments in droves.
Set aside for a moment whether that's actually a bad thing, and whether anyone who has a mortgage actually owns their home or not. (Anyone with a passing knowledge of real estate law will tell you that you only own part of the title to your home, but we can discuss Norman legal concepts another day.) The larger problem with all the talk about bailouts and afforability and decreasing equity and Wall Street greed is that it ignores a basic point - any contract you make is both a gamble and a tradeoff. When you sign a contract to buy a house or a car, you're gambling that you will like the house or car just as much in five years as you do today; that it will meet your needs; and that its value to you approaches the price you've agreed to pay. You're trading off the assurance inherent in agreeing on a price for the fact that if you waited a month or two more the price could go down (but it could go up). You make that gamble aware of the tradeoff and having satisfied yourself that it's worth it - that you're getting something at least approaching equal to what you're giving up.
If the government can then step in and tell you that, in fact, what you gave up is not equal to what you got - not even close - are you ever going to be willing to gamble? Will anyone be? Will our system be able to handle it?
Here's the thing: fair market value is a simple concept but a powerful one. It's just what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller will accept in an open market. If I bought my house for $100,000 a year ago, and it's worth $50,000 now, I hate to admit it, but, absent fraud, my house was worth $100,000 a year ago and is worth $50,000 now. Because a year ago, the guy I bought my house from could have sold it to someone else for $100,000. So the only arguments you can make, given this, that we should be rescued from making the gamble we made are: (1) we were too stupid to recognize that we were getting ripped off, or (2) the concept of fair market value doesn't work. If we're willing to retain capitalism and the free market as the basis for the American economic system, I think we have to reject (2), so we're stuck with (1). (Rejecting our current economic system is a question for another time.)
So I ask you - are you happy to be told that you're stupid? Because honestly, that's what both parties are saying right now. You're too dumb to know what's good for you, so we have to step in and fix this problem for you. Never mind that the cure may kill you.
Americans, let's man up. We got the mortgages we have because we wanted extra money to rehab the house. Or we wanted to live in a certain area. Because we believed that we could afford the monthly payments, as long as the interest rate didn't change and we kept our jobs and kept getting raises and didn't need to buy a car or a washing machine or a furnace in the next five years. We made a gamble. Believe me, I've been there. I've made that calculation. Sometimes I came out on the right side. Sometimes I had to pay, and pay dearly, for making a bad one. But we all have to pay. So let's suck it up, admit that greed doesn't begin and end on Wall Street, and keep making our payments. As Polonius said, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." (Never mind what happened to Polonius. Just don't hide behind the curtains when the homocidally insane son of the dead king is around.)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sarah Palin Rumors
Believe it or not, I gave a lot of thought over the weekend to responding to my friend who's commented on his fears of and opposition to Sarah Palin. And I still intend to, and to explain why it's taken me so long, in case you care. But in the meantime, I've been beaten to posting a comprehensive list of rumors about Sarah Palin and responses thereto. In all fairness, the author is clearly conservative and probably a Palin supporter. But he doesn't appear to go out of his way to debunk rumors purely because they're negative.
Update: Factcheck.org gets in on the act.
Update: Factcheck.org gets in on the act.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Random Thoughts: The Speech
WOW! Could you believe the energy and excitement! The sheer wonderfulness of the whole thing?! It was an hour of absolutely riveting television! Not to be forgotten! A breath of fresh air!
I am referring, of course, to last night's episode of Project Runway.
But first, the convention... for some reason, I was one of the few who enjoyed Huckabee's and Guiliani's speeches almost more than Palin's. It's clear that both men have lots of experience playing to crowds and making their points in a pithy and often funny manner. (I'm still chuckling over Huck's line about getting to college before he realized a shower wasn't supposed to hurt.) But they should be, right? Both men were serious presidential contenders, both have lots of experience giving speeches. Guiliani was a prosecutor, so he's used to making his point forcefully. Huckabee, if I'm not mistaken, is an ordained minister in addition to a politician. As I listened to both of them, I thought, you know, they're both doing a great job of selling McCain/Palin - a much better job than either of them did selling himself. Why is that?
Romney, on the other hand, was a flop for me. Maybe it was because I was driving while he was speaking, so I heard him on the radio and couldn't be dazzled by the magnificence of his hair. But although his speech was workmanlike and made some good points, particularly about the economy, I don't think it did what it was supposed to do - fire up the crowd.
I'm sorry I missed Michael Steele - I would have been interested to hear him.
Why did they stick the governor of Hawaii between Huckabee and Guiliani? I'm sure she's a capable person and all, but that's exactly what she came across as - capable. Competent. BORING. She sucked all the enthusiasm out of the crowd, which I'm sure was not the point. And it was hilarious to see her... husband? the guy sitting next to her, not sure who he was... shaking hands with Palin's dad. They looked vaguely similar (maybe just because they're both silver and balding), but he was so tan and Palin's dad was so pale, they could have been photo negatives of each other.
Anyway, Palin: the woman can give a speech, that's for sure. She's blessed with the rare female voice that doesn't sound shrill when trying to project. She ends her sentences by pitching her tone down, not up, which is also a skill a lot of women don't have. Now if she can just learn not to press her lips together like that all the time...
It was a basic speech. I think she just needed to get through it and have it be solid, calm, and informed. She will need to take on the traditional VP role of attack dog and go after the other side with passion and conviction. She seems to have done all those things, and well. She's still at the introduction stage, which is too bad - Obama, Biden, and McCain all have a jump on her there. She's been portrayed so much as a backwoods rube, it was strange to hear her speaking so knowledgeably on foreign policy. She came across as smart, tough, and ready for a fight - good thing, too, because Biden will be spoiling for one once the debates roll around. Now THAT should be interesting.
Random thoughts on Project Runway forthcoming...
I am referring, of course, to last night's episode of Project Runway.
But first, the convention... for some reason, I was one of the few who enjoyed Huckabee's and Guiliani's speeches almost more than Palin's. It's clear that both men have lots of experience playing to crowds and making their points in a pithy and often funny manner. (I'm still chuckling over Huck's line about getting to college before he realized a shower wasn't supposed to hurt.) But they should be, right? Both men were serious presidential contenders, both have lots of experience giving speeches. Guiliani was a prosecutor, so he's used to making his point forcefully. Huckabee, if I'm not mistaken, is an ordained minister in addition to a politician. As I listened to both of them, I thought, you know, they're both doing a great job of selling McCain/Palin - a much better job than either of them did selling himself. Why is that?
Romney, on the other hand, was a flop for me. Maybe it was because I was driving while he was speaking, so I heard him on the radio and couldn't be dazzled by the magnificence of his hair. But although his speech was workmanlike and made some good points, particularly about the economy, I don't think it did what it was supposed to do - fire up the crowd.
I'm sorry I missed Michael Steele - I would have been interested to hear him.
Why did they stick the governor of Hawaii between Huckabee and Guiliani? I'm sure she's a capable person and all, but that's exactly what she came across as - capable. Competent. BORING. She sucked all the enthusiasm out of the crowd, which I'm sure was not the point. And it was hilarious to see her... husband? the guy sitting next to her, not sure who he was... shaking hands with Palin's dad. They looked vaguely similar (maybe just because they're both silver and balding), but he was so tan and Palin's dad was so pale, they could have been photo negatives of each other.
Anyway, Palin: the woman can give a speech, that's for sure. She's blessed with the rare female voice that doesn't sound shrill when trying to project. She ends her sentences by pitching her tone down, not up, which is also a skill a lot of women don't have. Now if she can just learn not to press her lips together like that all the time...
It was a basic speech. I think she just needed to get through it and have it be solid, calm, and informed. She will need to take on the traditional VP role of attack dog and go after the other side with passion and conviction. She seems to have done all those things, and well. She's still at the introduction stage, which is too bad - Obama, Biden, and McCain all have a jump on her there. She's been portrayed so much as a backwoods rube, it was strange to hear her speaking so knowledgeably on foreign policy. She came across as smart, tough, and ready for a fight - good thing, too, because Biden will be spoiling for one once the debates roll around. Now THAT should be interesting.
Random thoughts on Project Runway forthcoming...
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Palin Production, pt. 3,203
Wow. Some people just don't want to give it up.
Folks, Trig is Sarah's baby. Need proof?
Could we lay off the stupid baby-mama-drama stories and get back to talking about the issues? Doubtful. People have been obsessed with scandal in politics since Grover Cleveland's time (and probably before), but it seems to have reached new heights this year - to the point that we're treating presidential candidates like the D-list knocked-up celebrities we're all obsessed with. [Grammar goddess interjects: "That should be '...with whom we're all obsessed.'"]
Oh, and P.S.: this is just ridiculous.
Folks, Trig is Sarah's baby. Need proof?
Could we lay off the stupid baby-mama-drama stories and get back to talking about the issues? Doubtful. People have been obsessed with scandal in politics since Grover Cleveland's time (and probably before), but it seems to have reached new heights this year - to the point that we're treating presidential candidates like the D-list knocked-up celebrities we're all obsessed with. [Grammar goddess interjects: "That should be '...with whom we're all obsessed.'"]
Oh, and P.S.: this is just ridiculous.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means
Hypocrisy: –noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
So the proverbial stuff has hit the proverbial fan, and not for the last time, I'm sure. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and getting married. Frankly, I'm not all that surprised. It's dark and cold in Alaska most of the year.
It's kind of a relief. In this day and age, you knew there was a skeleton or two in her closet. (By the way, have I mentioned that I envy her closet? Not as much as Anne Hathaway's, I grant you - GOD, that girl can dress - but nonetheless...) If this and the "Troopergate" scandal are the worst the press can come up with then, hell, she's doing fairly well. I fully expect to hear of some Billy-Carter-like toothless relative who shoots polar bears for fun or something.
It's got to be tough, though. Marriage is hard enough at 37, much less 17. I won't even get into parenthood. I only have a dog, so far.
But the thing that puzzles me is that the word "hypocrite" is being thrown around with respect to Sarah Palin and her daughter. Now, to me, a hypocrite is one who says one thing and does another. Let's say, for example, that Sarah Palin claimed to be an evangelical Christian, but on the weekends she flew with Paco the pool boy to Aruba, where she cavorted naked on the sand drinking mai tais and being fed peeled grapes. That, my friends, would be hypocrisy. Fun, but hypocritical. Or, on a more practical level, if she were saying she teaches her kids to wait until marriage but in fact tells them that it's okay to have sex or knows about them fooling around but deliberately looks the other way.
But having a 17-year-old pregnant daughter? I just don't think that's hypocritical. The argument, as I understand it, goes like this: Palin claims to be an evangelical Christian and to stand for family values, but her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock, so she can't possibly practice what she preaches. Say what? I mean, have you ever met a preacher's kid? Or a teenager, for that matter? People do what they're going to do. Kids disobey their parents. Even the best kids, the ones raised in the most loving and supportive homes, the ones taught the best values, the ones who succeed and are absolute joys to their parents, do completely asinine things. Do you remember high school? Like, at all? And don't even go there with college. That doesn't make their parents hypocrites. It makes the kids human.
Side note: if anything about Palin has a chance of proving hypocrisy, it's the Troopergate allegations. If true, they will prove damaging - she crusades as a reformer, all the while using her office to try to get her brother-in-law fired and firing the public safety director when she couldn't. I doubt whether they will prove true - the timing is all wrong, for one thing, and if the public safety director in fact refused to fire the trooper after he threatened his father-in-law's life and committed some of the other acts alleged, then there's no scandal there, as far as I can tell. But I digress.
I think "hypocrisy" is used by people these days to describe a sort of savage joy in someone else's problems, rather than the actual meaning of the word. It's a feeling of, "Ha! Caught you! You claim to be so high and mighty, but you, too, are human!" Which is fine - if that's how you feel, then say it. But don't throw around the word "hypocrite" unless you actually mean it.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
So the proverbial stuff has hit the proverbial fan, and not for the last time, I'm sure. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and getting married. Frankly, I'm not all that surprised. It's dark and cold in Alaska most of the year.
It's kind of a relief. In this day and age, you knew there was a skeleton or two in her closet. (By the way, have I mentioned that I envy her closet? Not as much as Anne Hathaway's, I grant you - GOD, that girl can dress - but nonetheless...) If this and the "Troopergate" scandal are the worst the press can come up with then, hell, she's doing fairly well. I fully expect to hear of some Billy-Carter-like toothless relative who shoots polar bears for fun or something.
It's got to be tough, though. Marriage is hard enough at 37, much less 17. I won't even get into parenthood. I only have a dog, so far.
But the thing that puzzles me is that the word "hypocrite" is being thrown around with respect to Sarah Palin and her daughter. Now, to me, a hypocrite is one who says one thing and does another. Let's say, for example, that Sarah Palin claimed to be an evangelical Christian, but on the weekends she flew with Paco the pool boy to Aruba, where she cavorted naked on the sand drinking mai tais and being fed peeled grapes. That, my friends, would be hypocrisy. Fun, but hypocritical. Or, on a more practical level, if she were saying she teaches her kids to wait until marriage but in fact tells them that it's okay to have sex or knows about them fooling around but deliberately looks the other way.
But having a 17-year-old pregnant daughter? I just don't think that's hypocritical. The argument, as I understand it, goes like this: Palin claims to be an evangelical Christian and to stand for family values, but her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock, so she can't possibly practice what she preaches. Say what? I mean, have you ever met a preacher's kid? Or a teenager, for that matter? People do what they're going to do. Kids disobey their parents. Even the best kids, the ones raised in the most loving and supportive homes, the ones taught the best values, the ones who succeed and are absolute joys to their parents, do completely asinine things. Do you remember high school? Like, at all? And don't even go there with college. That doesn't make their parents hypocrites. It makes the kids human.
Side note: if anything about Palin has a chance of proving hypocrisy, it's the Troopergate allegations. If true, they will prove damaging - she crusades as a reformer, all the while using her office to try to get her brother-in-law fired and firing the public safety director when she couldn't. I doubt whether they will prove true - the timing is all wrong, for one thing, and if the public safety director in fact refused to fire the trooper after he threatened his father-in-law's life and committed some of the other acts alleged, then there's no scandal there, as far as I can tell. But I digress.
I think "hypocrisy" is used by people these days to describe a sort of savage joy in someone else's problems, rather than the actual meaning of the word. It's a feeling of, "Ha! Caught you! You claim to be so high and mighty, but you, too, are human!" Which is fine - if that's how you feel, then say it. But don't throw around the word "hypocrite" unless you actually mean it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
