George Stephanopoulos Double Standard

#GeorgeStephanopoulos #stephanopoulos #metoo

You Both Are Wrong

Judging Others

Almost without fail, those who make proclamations about not judging others are the busiest at judging others. Especially the non-religious do-gooders.

Che v Lee

Victor Davis Hanson makes some great points about the comparison of some of the left's favorite role models and the current hysteria over things the left would like to throw in the dust bin of history.

Slavery is horrible and should be shunned by decent people everywhere.

Communism, Che's ideology of choice, enslaves and murders more people than any other ideology.

And it is particularly brutal.

Shouldn't both be shunned as ideological enemies?

So by all means, go ahead and get on your high horse and ride. But maybe say a word or two about other devilish ideologies and butchers that also have blood on their hands.

Leftist Investment Hypocrisy?

Of course the hoots of hypocrisy rise from the left:

To be sure, investing via mutual funds usually puts you in the position of taking some bad with the good.  It is difficult to invest only in those things that are ideologically pure.

A response to the shouts of hypocrisy might be:

In case you are not aware of the investment practices of the left, you can find some info on it here, here and here.

More of this leftist lack of self awareness and double standard: Bain Charlatans

Progressive Insurance

VDH does a good roundup of the left's double standard.

Of Geese and Ganders

Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374393/leland-yee-kochs-and-press-jonah-goldberg
http://freebeacon.com/columns/gas-attack/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314025/how-did-harry-reid-get-rich-betsy-woodruff

The Bigotry of Biology

Klavan on one aspect: the attempt to "bully the idea of female beauty out of the culture."

Those People Just Like Me Are Evil

If you look today, the typical CEO makes 354 times more than the typical worker in his or her company.

CBS analyst Mellody Hobson made this comment while discussing income inequality, excessive CEO pay and capitalism. BTW, she is married to George Lucas who is worth $7.3 billion.

The stunning lack of self-awareness is only invisible to those who feel that intentions and do-gooder speechifying in order to guilt and shame everybody else is equal to or better than actually doing anything to alleviate the situation. The unbedecked emperor's sycophants thought he had a wonderful sense of style too. Odd, isn't it, that it is okay for one side to pass judgment while constantly haranguing the other side about the evils of passing judgement.

You would think that this band of moralizers could find just one acetic to preach their gospel.

But remember, an important part of leftist dogma is "Do as I say not as I do."

You're Perfect. We Love You. As Long As You're Leftist.

The left believes they are wiser, kinder, better, more decent and sophisticated than the right. This graphic demonstrates some of that characteristic of the left. It is one of the most depressing things that is revealed about the philosophical differences between left and right. The left cannot simply disagree with those on the right; the right must be mocked, demonized and ridiculed.

The left isn't really interested in women's advancement, they are interested in leftist women's advancement. The left isn't really interested in black's advancement, they are interested in leftist black's advancement. The left isn't really interested in homosexual's advancement, they are interested in leftist homosexual's advancement. This is why any of these groups and others on the right are mocked and ridiculed by the left. This is why the left feels comfortable mocking and making racist comments about blacks such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams, Clarence Thomas. (Juan Williams being a particularly pertinent example since he is a man of the left.) Similarly, leftists feel no guilt or shame about their own sexist impulses when they dismiss the woman of the right, or their homophobic comments about right leaning gays, or any other group they claim to care about when it deviates from the leftist mantra.

The right must be dismissed as stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical. That way the deep discussions about legitimate issues can be dismissed without rigor. After all, who needs to have a discussion with a cretin? There is no need to account for one's own actions or behaviors when one can just dismiss the humanity of the other side. The end justifies the means.

This is why the colossal double standards of the left do not trouble the left. That the Obama administration paid women less on average than men is of no interest to the left. That two stories were told about Benghazi is of no interest to the left. That Obama has held every possible position on gay marriage for the purpose of political expediency is of no interest to the left. The list is endless and the lack of 'progressive' introspection limitless. But it doesn't matter because bigger issues are at stake.

The left are experts at ridicule and use it as a substitute for thoughtful discussion. From Bill Maher to the MSNBC crowd to the President himself mockingly lecturing about "these things called aircraft carriers" and submarines during a debate. I'm sure the self-satisfied left thinks this is funny, but it is likely behavior that they would not approve of from their own children in a public forum. For a crowd that is hypersensitive to hate speech and meanness, they sure do engage in a lot of it. As Mark Steyn noted with regard to the Duck Dynasty dustup:

GLAAD wouldn't rather "start a conversation." But, if you don't need to, why bother? Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don't oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It's quicker and more effective to silence them.

The left cannot allow the right to be thought of as decent folks who just have a different vision or opinion because they would then be forced to deal with the arguments and ideas of the right. Instead they engage in voicing hostile, coarse and vulgar sentiments. They embark on the dehumanization tactic of ridicule and dismissal – they seek to DE-humanize their opponents. After all, one does not need to mount an argument with a sub species. Steyn is correct that something akin to shout-shaming a child is far easier than engaging in a discussion. It is shameful and sad. And, ironically, un-intellectual, unkind, unwise and unsophisticated – snarky graphics about how stupid one's opponents are notwithstanding.

And for those that tout science and facts and such as king, evidence contrary to their premise makes no difference. After all, science is settled so why shouldn't everything else be as impervious to thoughtful discourse? However, a few rebuttals for hope's sake:

• Romney went to Harvard Business, Harvard Law, BYU, Stanford and Harvard.
• George W. Bush went to Harvard Business and Yale.
• Thomas Sowell went to Columbia, Harvard, University of Chicago, Harvard College, and Howard University and taught at UCLA, Amherst College, Brandeis University, Cornell University, Howard University and Douglass College.
• Milton Friedman went to University of Chicago, Rutgers University, and Columbia University and taught at Columbia University, University of Minnesota and the University of Chicago and was a Nobel laureate.
• Clarence Thomas went to Yale Law School and Yale University.
• Robert Bork went to University of Chicago and taught at Yale and had as students Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Anita Hill, Robert Reich, Jerry Brown and John R. Bolton.

But in spite of the spiteful graphic, the left is uninterested in and unimpressed by these pedigrees. Again, the left is not interested in intellect per se, but is interested in leftist intellectuals. Just as VP Biden jettisons Catholic doctrine when it does not conveniently comport with leftism, so the left doesn't care about alma maters when those with substantial pedigrees don't conform to leftist doctrine.

• Michele Bachmann went to law school, received a second degree in tax law and worked as a tax attorney for the IRS. This might be a respectable resume for anyone else, but because she does not hold leftist views she is vilified as a racist, bigoted, hater and is told that she should kill herself by decapitation.
• Laura Ingraham went to Dartmouth College, University of Virginia School of Law and University of Virginia but is roundly dismissed as an idiot, bigot, racist, homophobe and worse. 
• Ann Coulter went to University of Michigan, Cornell University and University of Michigan Law School but is called a moron, idiot, lunatic, troll, racist, sexist, white supremacist, bigot, hater, un-American and dumbass. (Space and decency prevents a full listing of leftist Coulter opprobrium.)
• Stacey Dash isn't lauded as a black actress with differing views. She is dismissed as a "house nigga who loves her master," an "idiot" and a "cunt".

Similarly, Clarence Thomas and other blacks who dare to stray from the leftist plantation are ridiculed and smeared. The most vile, sexist and racist epithets are hurled at anyone on the right no matter what their educational pedigree is. Feminism, racial sensitivity, decency, nuance and any number of other concerns are kicked to the curb when leftism is jilted.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with any of those listed above is not the issue. (I certainly don't agree with every belief held by everyone listed.) Whether the left is blind to their double standard and lack of self-awareness is the issue. The left is tolerant of everyone except those they aren't tolerant of. The left is only interested in mistruths, "inartful articulations", political ambition, lobbyists, infidelities, awful behavior, name calling, big business, tax cheats, cover-ups, voter suppression, misogyny, sexism, legislating morality, flip-flopping, collateral damage, bigotry, hurtful language, religious sensitivities, silver spoons, reading material, mentors, church affiliations, associates, etc., when those things run afoul of leftism. Is the left supportive of blacks, Hispanics, Latinos, women, the poor, homosexuals, immigrants or teachers who hold conservative views? The answer is obvious.

Some dropouts that didn't make the list are:

• LBJ (who dropped out of Georgetown Law) 
• FDR (who dropped out of Columbia Law) 
• Al Gore (who dropped out of Vanderbilt Law)

And yet, the left is mysteriously enamored of these fellow leftists. But, if the graphic is to be believed, what could these dropouts possibly have to offer? One wonders how the left feels about George Washington who never attended college.

When a Pope speaks out against the potential failings of capitalism in the absence of morality, he is a genius to behold and we are regaled with recollections of how certain politicians boast that Catholicism "has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can't take care of themselves, people who need help," and how legislating this morality is the right thing to do. However, when a Pope speaks against abortion or homosexuality we are told that

• such claptrap is a "nod to conservatives" - tossing them a bone, 
• we are to set those notions aside and not "impose that on others," 
• we do not "have a right to tell other people that" 
• we need to quit trying to legislate morality.

When a leftist marries or adopts interracially it is a beautiful demonstration of a colorblind union of love. If somebody on the right dares to do it

• he is saying "no to blacks; he has already said if he can't paint himself white he'll think white and marry a white woman," 
• "His marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community," 
• "He's married a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black," 
• she is a "white man's whore," 
• they think and live the "wrong" way, 
• they are mocked in song that "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn't the same," 
• that the "other" is merely a "token," 
• they have an "unsegregated adoption."

When a black holds leftist views he is evidence of improving race relations and the will of the individual to overcome – and oh, by the way, "is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." However, when Herman Cain advances through life

• he is a "house nigger," 
• an "uncle Tom," 
• "embarrassing", 
• a "black monster," 
• "doesn't think like a black," 
• is not "black enough," 
• is not an "authentic black", 
• is a "white man's puppet," 
• fits the racist stereotype of sexually aggressive black men.

When a leftist woman is successful she is a beacon of hope to women and embodies the American spirit of hard work. However, when Michelle Malkin does it she is

• an "Oriental Auntie-Tom," 
• a "yellow woman doing the white man's job," 
• a "Manila whore" 
• a "Subic Bay bar girl" 

Or if Sarah Palin is successful, she

• "looks like a whore," 
• is dismissed as an object of sexual desire, 
• "would be the outstanding candidate" for the slave punishment of putting shit in her mouth, 
• is a "retard making cunt," 
• is a "dumb twat," 
• is a "white bitch, with your slut daughter and retard child" 
• should be "hate fucked".

Anything can be said about those on the right. And leftists can be as sexist, homophobic, racist, bigoted, mean-spirited and repugnant as they want. They claim to be none of it while doing all of it. Of course it is a double standard. Of course the left doesn't care. Anything is permissible for the cause. As Malkin has noted, 

What a tangled web libs weave when first they practice to aggrieve!

In the end, education and intellect are only of passing importance to the left. These things, along with everything else, are subordinated to leftism. Commitment to leftism is what matters most - thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Outsourcing Medical Care

More on this here.

When we seek medical care or prescription medicine in a foreign country, we are seeking to avoid the higher cost 'of doing business' here in the U.S. Is this really any different than corporations seeking to lower costs by using the cheap labor, lower tax rates and regulation avoidance by outsourcing? Going out of the country for medical care is an attempt to avoid the "tax" that subsidizes the cost of R&D and professional care for the rest of the world as well as the cost of providing care to those less fortunate in the U.S. (cost transference). The cost of the indigent or uninsured that go to the emergency room must be borne by somebody. That is one of the reasons the rest of us pay $20 for an Advil when we go to the hospital. So how is trying to avoid the added cost of medical care and prescriptions by getting around the "tax" applied to U.S. medical care any different than the robber baron who takes jobs and his money offshore to avoid taxation? Shouldn't Americans pay their 'fair share'

You Coexist

"A woman with the message “I AM GOD” painted on her body jumped up on the altar and screamed in the middle of a Mass on Christmas at Cologne Cathedral." [link to article]

QOTD

There is this new intolerance that people are cheer leading about. They phrase this new intolerance as enlightenment and then in the name of this faux enlightenment, they are quite totalitarian. This intellectual vanity - excessive self-regard. A belief that because [they] think [they're] right, mere process ought not to get in the way. In fact it is something that can be swept aside with a clear conscience because, after all, they know that they are the virtuous party.

~ Mona Charen

Dishonoring Others With Lies

It is amazing that Cheney was even able to speak, what with that file in his mouth to sharpen his teeth and all. I mean he is unmitigated evil, so this really shouldn't be surprising, right?

Well, hold on. I went to a Americans Against the Tea Party to see what all the fuss was all about. A left wing site like this should give me the unvarnished scoop on this most recent utterance of horror from the evil one.

Their headline shouted out the disturbing wickedness: "Dick Cheney Tells Fox News That Benghazi Is Worst Disaster In His Lifetime (Video)." They embedded the video and even kindly posted a transcript of Darth Cheney's words. Let's watch what the portal to hell actually said:

Huh? He didn't say it was the worst disaster. Maybe, as the AATTP so kindly informs, Cheney "mumbles through" this so it was hard to understand. Let's look at their own transcript of the screeching weasel of Hades:

It’s one of the worst .. incidents in frankly that I can recall in my career.

Either they can't read, they can't hear or they are liars. Take your pick. They have no problem misrepresenting what was actually said even after they post the video and the transcript that contradicts their statements - now that's chutzpah. I wonder how often this occurs in the name of partisan zeal? (Rhetorical question.) I guess they don't share the President's feeling that "We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus."? Apparently telling lies is neither dishonoring nor political big top material but calling attention to lies is.

One of the joys of being on the left is never having to say you're sorry. You can misquote somebody you disagree with and attach video and written evidence that you have misquoted them without suffering any shame or embarrassment. Anything for political gain. Destroy the opposition at all costs.

But at least Cheney couldn't say that the Benghazi bacchanal was the “Most Audacious Plan” In 500 Years. That honorific has already been doled out.

Impeach Obama, Maybe Not

Mike Huckabee, the Fox News host, said that the Benghazi hearings would lead to the downfall of Barack Obama, that when the facts came out Mr. Obama would not be able to finish his presidency.

Two reasons it may not advisable:

1. The imagery that will be used against Republicans if the first African American president is run out of town. Undoubtedly there will be political cartoons depicting Obama in shackles. And that will only be the beginning.
2. Joe Biden.

Benghazi Cover

"The White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community." And because of this, Bush lied and people died. Oops. Wait. That quote was from an ABC News report about the Benghazi movie review gone bad. Does this mean Obama lied and people died? Is this cover-up the transparency we were promised? And didn't Ms. Clinton promise us that she would be a better 3 AM phone hen than Obama? Christopher Stevens called.

But, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

Maybe they did all they could do. Foreign affairs is a messy business; things go wrong. They were trying to manage a crisis consistent with their beliefs, agendas and ideology. There are no right answers. And I'm not sure any other response would have ended any better. 

But the double standard is dangerous.

Same Sex Marriage Double Standard

HuffPost Live host Josh Zepps interviewed Jeremy Irons and one of the topics hit upon was gay marriage.

The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. That Zepps is not able to self-reflect on his rejoinder that "Uh, well there are laws against incest" is stupefying. There are laws against all kinds of things and those laws can be changed. The presence of a law does not ensure that the law is just. I don't suppose he would support sodomy laws. Aren't the same sex marriage (SSM) supporters trying to undo laws that they perceive are unjust?  The reason the SCOTUS is considering SSM cases is precisely because certain laws and changes to a state's constitution is thought to be unjust.

You would think that that would be enough unconscious opining for one interview, but no, he doubles down.

Zepps: "No, that sounds like a total red herring. I'm sure that incest law would still cover same sex marriages."

Irons: "Really? Why?"

Zepps: "Because I don't think the incest law is only justified on the basis of the consequences of procreation. I think there's also a moral approbation that's associated with incest."

Astounding.

Zepps seems to be completely unaware of his own statements. Is he really making the case for moral approbation (I suppose he meant prohibition) of a behavior? Really? Tap, tap, tap. Hello Mr. Zepps. Are you aware that the moral prohibition argument is exactly what has been used to prevent SSM and the very activity that leads to SSM? Are you not aware of what the SSM crowd is fighting against?!?!?!?!?

Since the whole point of legalizing SSM is to remove the moral prohibition therof, what is the argument that can be made to prevent the removal of other moral prohibitions? Furthermore, to borrow the arguments on behalf of removing the moral prohibition of SSM, how does incest or polygamy or any number of other arrangements hurt the gay's marriage? Incest or polygamy wouldn't hurt their marriage or affect them in any way. And who are the gays to look down their nose and dictate who somebody can love? Why can't the polygamist and incest-amist (I know of no noun for those who commit incest...) love whom they want to love? Cannot a loving poly-amorous unit raise good and decent citizens just like hetero or gay couples? Why the bigotry?

But I get the "You can't expect me to believe that society would lift the moral prohibition of incest just because we want to lift a moral prohibition" argument all the time. You would think the self-reflective person would stop after hearing the double-standard and the absurdity of the argument and for the sake of intellectual honesty concede the point.

Of course, none of this argues for or against SSM. And conceding this obvious point does not necessarily negate other aspects of the argument. Discussion of such issues is just an honest, open examination of the penumbra of consequences that may result from this change. A good-willed gay or lesbian interested in open discussion rather than forcible imposition of dogma could just as easily conclude these things.

The honest broker would say, "Of course we intend to discriminate against certain of our fellow citizens and declare their behavior to be morally objectionable. We just want to move the fence far enough for us to get in while keeping those we disagree with out." And based upon what? At least polygamy and incest have the advantage of actually having been tried throughout history. SSM on the other hand is uncharted. Does that put those who support SSM on the wrong side of history?

What is ignored is that if these sea changes are based on the current social eros ethos, upon what are the guardrails for society based? The response is always a version of, "Well, you don't have to be religious to be moral." Sure. Just as being religious is no guarantee that one will be moral. But let's be honest, there is no discernible distinction between the one who allows SSM into the assemblage of morally acceptable behaviors while excluding polygamy, incest and many other variations on the theme and the one who disallows SSM for doctrinal reasons or because 'God told him so'. Your placement of the societal fencing to include SSM is no different than their placement to exclude it. It is belief based on a mysticism and current social doctrine. It is morality by committee and is about as good an example of arbitrary and capricious as one can find.

At the end of the day, the supporter of redefining the moral boundaries to include SSM is left with the identical argument as the religious person for why one activity is moral and another isn't: "Because I say so." The religious says that God informs his doctrine while the irreligious says that nature, his conscience or some other ethereal phenomenon is the source of morality and informs his doctrine. The religious are mocked for relying on their buddy in the sky by those who can identify no better moral source or even a reason for the existence of morality. The mockers like to believe that a dianoetic journey leads them to their conclusions about morality. But in the end they are left with the curt response of the religious – "Because God said so" – replacing the notion of God with logic or their version of a buddy in the sky. They are as powerless to prove the parameters of morality or the reason for its existence as the religious are to prove the existence of God. As with Zepps, it is almost as though they cannot hear themselves speak.

Ever Has It Been

The badgering and opprobrium showered on the Catholic church in many ways is a study in lack of self-awareness. Those old men in Rome are lectured that they need to get with it and adopt new values and standards and to quit thinking they know better than the rest of us by a crowd that is certain that they know better.

As Taranto notes:

If you judge it by the standard of contemporary feminism and sexual liberationism, of course it will seem lacking. But these fashionable dogmas have yet to prove their worth, either for understanding human nature or sustaining a society over the long term. Their adherents fancy themselves sophisticated, but in fact they frequently are too simple-minded--or perhaps fearful--even to consider a different way of looking at the world.

I suppose the Jews were similarly mocked for their stodgy prudence by the followers of Baal because of their reluctance to engage in sex worship, commanded religious prostitution, human sacrifice and burying sacrificed babies in the cornerstone of a house.

My experience is that most religious peoples are constantly questioning and reevaluating their dogmas. Remember Mother Teresa's confessions of doubt-filled angst? I wonder if those mocking the Catholic church ever do.

Venezuela Cleans Up After Hugo

On the heels of Rodman schmoozing with the warden of the world's largest prison colony, we have some good news from the third world.  But one of the left's favorite sons did not receive a glowing obit from the left's paper of record.  The NYT (I repeat, the NYT, friend of the left) description of Chávez:

• visceral connection with the poor, tapping into their resentments
• his followers called him Comandante
• had no qualms about using weapons to seize power
• used oil revenues to finance his desires
• nationaliz(ed) dozens of foreign-owned assets, including oil projects controlled by Exxon Mobil
• social welfare programs could be corrupt and inefficient, but they made the poor feel included in a society
• determined to hold onto and enhance his power

The WSJ who does not share ideology with this guy also notes:

• he stripped independent TV and radio stations of their licenses
• opposition politicians were limited to three minutes of advertising a day, while Chávez could commandeer the airwaves at any time
• he permitted no debates
• public workers risked being fired if they voted against him.

Weren't these the kind elections that Jimmy Carter blessed?  (For those of you not paying attention, the answer is "yes".)  Can anything be learned or concluded about President Carter's ideology from this? Are we allowed to conclude anything based on a man's actions? Or are stated good intentions the only thing that informs our judgment?  Anyway, the list of laudable accomplishments rolls on:

• despite the populism and government handouts,... the less-fortunate now endure routine food and medicine shortages
• prices are more than 20 times higher than in 1999
• the murder rate in Caracas is one of the highest in the world
• bridges and roads are in disrepair
• blackouts are routine
• untreated sewage pollutes drinking water

How on earth does this qualify him to be the "hero to Venezuela's poor" as the LA Times headline barked? These conditions are good for the poor?

What is it exactly that the left so admires about this man and other fellow sojourners like him on the left? Why would Kevin Spacey, Danny Glover, and Sean Penn visit this man? Some of this sounds like the left's fevered imaginary description that justified deep hatred of Bush. But this engenders love and admiration for Chávez? So they share Chávez's ideology or... what? I guess oil money is super nifty when you are a petrol-potentate or it is purchasing a leftist TV station. Remember, the NYT is inclined to print hagiographies of guys like this. But all they could come up with was what a rat he was?

He grew obsessed with changing Venezuela’s laws and regulations to ensure that he could be re-elected indefinitely and become, indeed, a caudillo, able to rule by decree at times.

The NYT could have saved some space on that one.  We have a nice short word for that – dictator.

The NYT continues:

He stacked his government with generals, colonels and majors, drawing inspiration from the leftist military officers who ruled Peru and Panama in the 1970s.

...often in his military uniform and paratrooper’s red beret.

Isn't the left always worried about the militarization of government? Is there no self-awareness? The ends justify the means? Pas d'ennemis à gauche, I guess.

The NYT ended with psychiatrist Dr. Edmundo Chirinos's assessment: “a hyperkinetic and imprudent man, unpunctual, someone who overreacts to criticism, harbors grudges, is politically astute and manipulative, and possesses tremendous stamina, never sleeping more than two or three hours a night.” The WSJ concludes with: "As life stories go, the lesson of Chávez's is to beware charismatic demagogues peddling socialist policies at home and revolution abroad." That is, if we can conclude anything from results and not just intentions.

We Accept Everybody, Except Those We Don't

The lack of self-awareness on the left is staggering.