Truthy-nuts
Back when the republicans had a few things to say which weren't fear-mongering I leaned towards a few of their points, but still supported democrats in a majority of races. Like most of the guys I knew in Naval Aviation, we were non-partisan, said we were conservative but actually voted a more progressive line. As I've become less and less trustful and more disgusted with the Gop Store (for the rich) I've wondered why. They've always been assiduous in their anilingus for the wealthy, so that hasn't changed. Then one day a couple weeks ago a thought occurred which keeps coming back.
I was thinking how neither party has anything close to a monopoly on lying. How many times have we seen an apparently remorseful or even teary democrat apologizing for being a lying son of a bitch after the wiggle room was exhausted? How often have we seen a republican denying the obvious and making everyone think they are unrepentant rat bastard sacks of lying shit? Strong language, and that is the point. It occurred to me that however often they fail to live up to ideals, that in general honesty is a value with the democrats. With republicans that is not true, in general truth is a tactic (which they don't often find useful).
Recent high profile cases. Spitzer and his hookers; bawling repentance from the democrat. Recent, hypocritical, tawdry, and inane. Stevens as a hooker for oil clientele, whom I thought would get off as the prosecution appeared to be throwing the contest, insists he was not convicted. Fact: his conviction by a jury of his peers was for lying. Now he's demonstrating the belief he is above the law (which is a non-partisan trait of the powerful), and especially ironic in this case. Is it that at eighty-four he little old man frightened silly of a major change in his day to to day life? Or is he paving the way for Palin, believing he'll be elected and then she'd be appointed. Either way it's up to Alaska. I'm wondering whether they feel they owe him service, or rather the senator should be serving them.
Spitzer got his pain out and done with rather quickly, a better solution for him and his constituency. He showed himself to have feet of clay, and quickly stepped aside when he could no longer serve effectively. He didn't seem to feel the constituency owed him something. Stevens seems to think that by God the little people he should be serving owe him a huge debt, and a criminal conviction at their hands doesn't even count. Are those the respective end games for the 'truth as value' versus 'truth as tactic' ethical systems?
I was thinking how neither party has anything close to a monopoly on lying. How many times have we seen an apparently remorseful or even teary democrat apologizing for being a lying son of a bitch after the wiggle room was exhausted? How often have we seen a republican denying the obvious and making everyone think they are unrepentant rat bastard sacks of lying shit? Strong language, and that is the point. It occurred to me that however often they fail to live up to ideals, that in general honesty is a value with the democrats. With republicans that is not true, in general truth is a tactic (which they don't often find useful).
Recent high profile cases. Spitzer and his hookers; bawling repentance from the democrat. Recent, hypocritical, tawdry, and inane. Stevens as a hooker for oil clientele, whom I thought would get off as the prosecution appeared to be throwing the contest, insists he was not convicted. Fact: his conviction by a jury of his peers was for lying. Now he's demonstrating the belief he is above the law (which is a non-partisan trait of the powerful), and especially ironic in this case. Is it that at eighty-four he little old man frightened silly of a major change in his day to to day life? Or is he paving the way for Palin, believing he'll be elected and then she'd be appointed. Either way it's up to Alaska. I'm wondering whether they feel they owe him service, or rather the senator should be serving them.
Spitzer got his pain out and done with rather quickly, a better solution for him and his constituency. He showed himself to have feet of clay, and quickly stepped aside when he could no longer serve effectively. He didn't seem to feel the constituency owed him something. Stevens seems to think that by God the little people he should be serving owe him a huge debt, and a criminal conviction at their hands doesn't even count. Are those the respective end games for the 'truth as value' versus 'truth as tactic' ethical systems?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home