Confronted By Hypocrisy
ProudProgressive
2012/07/11 11:31:23
Confronted By Hypocrisy
By Cliff Schecter
July 10, 2012
We are all hypocrites now and again. It seems to be a key ingredient of human nature, to ignore those who advise us to "judge not lest ye be judged," as we looks towards our friends, neighbors and political leaders with the scowl of Simon Cowell, as if we're Charles in Charge and they're Tyler Durden from Fight Club.
So that is who we are as a species. If we screw up it's bad luck. If the guy or gal down the hall does, there was evil intent or they are incompetent or quite likely a member of the Palin family trying to do another reality show (nice work Lifetime!). Although, to give Bristol Palin credit, she deserves some kind of a prize for convincing 1.1 million people who actually thought the idea of watching Dancing Moms to be a good one, to put the Cheetos aside once the mom-folk stopped undulating, lean forward in their Barcaloungers and turn the channel to anything where Bristol Palin was not.
But I digress. Yes, human beings are hypocrites. If we weren't we wouldn't get just so darn offended when we find out our favorite athlete went to the team that paid the most money or senator such-and-such said a bad word. Lord knows neither of these offenses would ever befall any of us.
Yet, that group of gray hairs reenacting their very own libertarian Woodstock, also known as Tea Party faithful, they seem to almost delight in their hypocrisy. Often we talk about this this in terms of their not-quite-personally-valued family values fetishes. For if you added up those lucky duckies who have, at one time or another, been enjoined in marital bliss to Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, you could probably start a small village of home-schooled, Jesus-campers.
But on the economic front, this do-as-I-say-not-as-I'd-ever-think-of-doing is just as pernicious, if not more.
On Wednesday, Sam Stein of The Huffington Post made this abundantly clear on that day's edition of Morning Joe. Stein was on the panel with former (and kind of still current) Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who has compared Social Security to slavery, and had just gone on a long exposition about how it was unconstitutional, abrogated our freedoms and was just a downright terrible idea in general. So Stein asked Paul a simple question. "Are you on Social Security?"
I bet you know the answer! Of course Ron Paul cashes his Social Security checks. Sure, he has the means so he doesn't have to accept them. As a former doctor, and from those kindly old newlsletters he published in the 1990s that helpfully warned us about all those criminally inclined (as high as 95% in Washington DC alone!) and "fleet of foot" black men walking--or perhaps running--among us. But much like his idol Ayn Rand, who thought Social Security was evil until she accepted it and Medicare under her husband's name, and more recently Congressman Paul Ryan, who utilized Social Security survivor benefits to attend college, Ron Paul is a hypocrite of the highest order.
Social Security is a-ok to do for them (not currently for Rand, as she has passed on) as it currently does for millions of Americans in providing a necessary income supplement to retirement or benefits for children who have lost a parent, but won't do anymore for the hoi polloi if the Pauls and Ryans get their way (yes they are not trying to eliminate it, but they are trying to privatize it, which in light of what happened in 2008, is a swell idea).
Of course this is a widespread trend. Tea Party hero-cum-lunatic Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, who screams at constituents about spending like Chris Christie screams at constituents about, well, everything, was found to be delinquent by a judge in paying child support to the tune of $100,000 (personal responsibility!). Or Michele Bachmann of the Children-Of-The-Corn eyes, who happily accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies for the family farm while thinking this kind of government spending for anyone else to be a conspiracy on par with the moon landing! And, of course, all you have to do is look at the members of Congress who repeated Tea Party slogans while killing the public option, only to accept their swanky government-provided health insurance, thank you very much.
Hypocrisy is the worst of human nature. And it is in all of us. It's just in the Tea Party a lot more.
By Cliff Schecter
July 10, 2012
We are all hypocrites now and again. It seems to be a key ingredient of human nature, to ignore those who advise us to "judge not lest ye be judged," as we looks towards our friends, neighbors and political leaders with the scowl of Simon Cowell, as if we're Charles in Charge and they're Tyler Durden from Fight Club.
So that is who we are as a species. If we screw up it's bad luck. If the guy or gal down the hall does, there was evil intent or they are incompetent or quite likely a member of the Palin family trying to do another reality show (nice work Lifetime!). Although, to give Bristol Palin credit, she deserves some kind of a prize for convincing 1.1 million people who actually thought the idea of watching Dancing Moms to be a good one, to put the Cheetos aside once the mom-folk stopped undulating, lean forward in their Barcaloungers and turn the channel to anything where Bristol Palin was not.
But I digress. Yes, human beings are hypocrites. If we weren't we wouldn't get just so darn offended when we find out our favorite athlete went to the team that paid the most money or senator such-and-such said a bad word. Lord knows neither of these offenses would ever befall any of us.
Yet, that group of gray hairs reenacting their very own libertarian Woodstock, also known as Tea Party faithful, they seem to almost delight in their hypocrisy. Often we talk about this this in terms of their not-quite-personally-valued family values fetishes. For if you added up those lucky duckies who have, at one time or another, been enjoined in marital bliss to Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, you could probably start a small village of home-schooled, Jesus-campers.
But on the economic front, this do-as-I-say-not-as-I'd-ever-think-of-doing is just as pernicious, if not more.
On Wednesday, Sam Stein of The Huffington Post made this abundantly clear on that day's edition of Morning Joe. Stein was on the panel with former (and kind of still current) Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who has compared Social Security to slavery, and had just gone on a long exposition about how it was unconstitutional, abrogated our freedoms and was just a downright terrible idea in general. So Stein asked Paul a simple question. "Are you on Social Security?"
I bet you know the answer! Of course Ron Paul cashes his Social Security checks. Sure, he has the means so he doesn't have to accept them. As a former doctor, and from those kindly old newlsletters he published in the 1990s that helpfully warned us about all those criminally inclined (as high as 95% in Washington DC alone!) and "fleet of foot" black men walking--or perhaps running--among us. But much like his idol Ayn Rand, who thought Social Security was evil until she accepted it and Medicare under her husband's name, and more recently Congressman Paul Ryan, who utilized Social Security survivor benefits to attend college, Ron Paul is a hypocrite of the highest order.
Social Security is a-ok to do for them (not currently for Rand, as she has passed on) as it currently does for millions of Americans in providing a necessary income supplement to retirement or benefits for children who have lost a parent, but won't do anymore for the hoi polloi if the Pauls and Ryans get their way (yes they are not trying to eliminate it, but they are trying to privatize it, which in light of what happened in 2008, is a swell idea).
Of course this is a widespread trend. Tea Party hero-cum-lunatic Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, who screams at constituents about spending like Chris Christie screams at constituents about, well, everything, was found to be delinquent by a judge in paying child support to the tune of $100,000 (personal responsibility!). Or Michele Bachmann of the Children-Of-The-Corn eyes, who happily accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies for the family farm while thinking this kind of government spending for anyone else to be a conspiracy on par with the moon landing! And, of course, all you have to do is look at the members of Congress who repeated Tea Party slogans while killing the public option, only to accept their swanky government-provided health insurance, thank you very much.
Hypocrisy is the worst of human nature. And it is in all of us. It's just in the Tea Party a lot more.
Read More: http://crooksandliars.com/cliff-schecter/confronte...
The part that says " Hypocrisy is the worst of human nature. And it is in all of us..."
For commrade HeadinSchphincter to single out the tea party as hypocritical and conveniently leave out the public unions , that is just wrong. The fact that a mandate
exists for everyone except... is also wrong. For ANYONE to pen an article in
which you open with the statement " We are all hypocrites now and again..."
and then attempt to place yourself or your party on a different plain or level
is quite possibly the MOST BLATANT form or hypocrisy. Of course I would
expect nothing less from you and the rest of the liberal progressive ilk.
-----------------------------...
Jamie Dupree Washington Insider More Health Waivers
5:30 am December 7, 2010, by Jamie Dupree
The Obama Administration has quietly granted even more waivers to one provision of the new federal health reform law, doubling the number in just the last three weeks to a new total of 222.
One of the more recognizable business names included on the newly-expanded list of waivers issued by the feds is that of Waffle House, which received a waiver on November 23 for health coverage that covers 3,947 enrollees.
Another familiar name was that of Univer...
&
The part that says " Hypocrisy is the worst of human nature. And it is in all of us..."
For commrade HeadinSchphincter to single out the tea party as hypocritical and conveniently leave out the public unions , that is just wrong. The fact that a mandate
exists for everyone except... is also wrong. For ANYONE to pen an article in
which you open with the statement " We are all hypocrites now and again..."
and then attempt to place yourself or your party on a different plain or level
is quite possibly the MOST BLATANT form or hypocrisy. Of course I would
expect nothing less from you and the rest of the liberal progressive ilk.
-----------------------------...
Jamie Dupree Washington Insider More Health Waivers
5:30 am December 7, 2010, by Jamie Dupree
The Obama Administration has quietly granted even more waivers to one provision of the new federal health reform law, doubling the number in just the last three weeks to a new total of 222.
One of the more recognizable business names included on the newly-expanded list of waivers issued by the feds is that of Waffle House, which received a waiver on November 23 for health coverage that covers 3,947 enrollees.
Another familiar name was that of Universal Orlando, which runs a variety of very popular resorts in the Orlando, Florida area. Universal was given a waiver for plans that cover 668 workers.
And there are more unions who have received waivers in this latest batch, like the Bricklayers Local 1 of MD, VA and DC, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, the Indiana Teamsters Health Benefits Fund, Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund, and more are listed.
The information on the waivers, which is buried deep on the web site of the U.S. Health & Human Services Department, shows that since it was last updated in mid-November, the number of waivers issued has gone from 111 to 222
SEIU , the very group that pushed the boy wonder to pass this piece of junk and
now they get exempted from participating. REALLY.
-----------------------------...
HHS grants 500 new healthcare waivers
By Jason Millman - 01/26/11 05:50 PM ET
As of last week, HHS had granted waivers to 222 organizations covering 1.5 million individuals. Though the number of groups receiving waivers has now more than tripled, the number of individuals covered by the waivers increased just 600,000 to 2.1 million.
-----------------------------...
Number of healthcare reform law waivers climbs above 1,000
By Jason Millman - 03/06/11 04:38 PM ET
The number of temporary healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama administration to organizations climbed to more than 1,000, according to new numbers disclosed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS posted 126 new waivers on Friday, bringing the total to 1,040 organizations that have been granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law
-----------------------------...
Business
How Many Businesses Are Exempt? The Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers Is In…
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:32pm by Becket Adams
“Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation,” writes Paul Conner of the Daily Caller. “By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.”
-----------------------------...
But in one of the truly delicious bits of irony discovered while browsing the list of those seeking asylum from the health care overhaul, I discovered the name of New England Health Care. No, it’s not an insurance company. It’s a policy institute. Let’s dig into their mission statement a bit and see what they’re all about, shall we?
Founded in 2002, the New England Healthcare Institute – known as NEHI – is a nonprofit, independent health policy institute dedicated to transforming health care for the benefit of patients and their families.
So an institute dedicated to finding ways to reform the health care system had to apply for an exemption from the administration’s reforms to the health care system? Keep your eyes on the news next week, as I’m fairly sure that the heads of some immigration reform lobbying groups will be deported.
-----------------------------...
The liberal progressives (Pelosi,Reid,Frank,Dodd, Waters etc...) OWN HYPOCRISY
and dish it out liberally.
... pointing out that of the 204 waivers the HHS granted in April, waiving certain companies from one specific part of the Affordable Care Act, 38 went to businesses in Pelosi's district -- nearly 20 percent of the total.
It seems EVERY time you attempt to stake out the high ground on an issue , we find
that it is usually found in the middle of quicksand.
You do ,however, get an A for ignorant persistence.
with my response to the original poster ? The article is about hypocrisy that was perceived by one person in regards to one certain group with which they do not
agree. I responded to show that you can't throw rocks out of that glass house.
Anyone who truly needs help should be able to get what they need, The problem
arises from the fact that many of those, in this country, who are below the poverty
level are there by choice because it pays better than trying to work. They have
small children and can't get a job that pays well enough to pay for daycare. This
also perpetuates itself when others in the same boat see it working for others
and decide to give it a try and find that it works for them also. Our government
now facilitates these lifestyles by offering 99 weeks of unemployment, relaxed
criteria for receiving food assistance and obtaining disability , and telling the
American people these things are the best kind of stimulus to get our country
back on track. BEAM ME UP SCOTTY .
My problem has little to do those less fortunate and more to do with how our
government chooses to combat the problem.
But what I found more interesting was that in 1980 their Vice Presidential candidate was David Koch - yes the same David Koch of the Koch Brothers that recently bought the Wisconsin recall election.
The benefits of privatizing Social Security are:
**Your money stays your money. You are putting money aside for your use. You don’t pay someone else’s benefits with the hope and promise that someone will come along later to pay your benefits.
Unused funds can be inherited. Right now you could pay into Social Security your entire working life and die before you ever receive benefits. Or you die after only receiving a small benefit. If Social Security was privatized the money you set aside could be passed on.
The government can’t reduce or withdraw your benefits. You would own your account. As it stands now you have no right to Social Security benefits. The government can change the rules at any time. If it were privatized you would not be at the mercy of the government to allow you to have your money.
***Ron Paul is not out to harm small children for pete's sake. He turned down his Congressional pay & benefits! Who does that? Stop trying to demonize him. You may not agree with everything he suggest & I don't either, but he is a good person.
meanwhile, he is [and you are] suggesting handing it over to the good graces of Wall Street. what a great idea THAT would be!
is your memory so short you've forgotten 2008? if you think that can't happen again you're living in la-la land.
I wasn't speaking of harming small children [though ending SS as we know it would certainly do that] but of the fact that your grandchildren will grow up, grow old and retire some day. and there will be no SS for them to fall back on.
my grandparents lived with no SS. they worked hard all their lives and died in poverty. I don't want that to happen to my children.
I'm living in a retirement community today. I have SS and I'm surrounded by people who have it. for many, it's their only income. it's not a lot but it IS the difference between having a home and not having one. the difference between eating three meals a day and not doing so. it really does make that big a difference.
if you want to be rid of it you'd better have something better to put in it's place. Wall Street is not better.
"Goldman Sachs contributions to the Obama campaign were more than four times larger than the $230,095 in donations to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.
"Barack Obama's presidential campaign shattered all records when it came to fundraising, so it's no surprise that he significantly outraised John McCain when it came to contributions from the financial industry in general and Goldman Sachs in particular," CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser said.Since the 2008 election, FEC reports indicate that Goldman Sachs has contributed generously to Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee members. The two panels are responsible for oversight of the industry.
-CNN