3 posts tagged “hypocrisy”

Here’s another example of why I say anti-war types can be miserable when it comes to normal, civilized discussions.
   I know the pro-war movement has its culprits, but I just don’t see as many of them. Perhaps they are closeted.
   Commenting at Digg in what I thought was an apolitical fashion about American veteran suicides, I wrote:

I know a few American vets from the most recent conflicts. The brother of a friend was near suicide not from PTSD but from people critical of the War on Terror back in the US who took it out on him, calling him a murderer, etc. I don’t know if these other victims had similar experiences from their compatriots but it would be awful if that were the case.

   An honest appraisal. I do know a few vets, maybe not as many as most Americans. One friend does have a brother who went through some horrible experiences after he returned to the US. I even say I don’t know what caused the other suicides—but if other Americans were critical of their own to that degree, it would be a terrible situation. It is worth advancing this viewpoint for the sake of veterans who have taken their own lives—just in case this contributed to their suicides. Because the US Government is evidently not doing enough for members of the armed forces who returned home.
   I would say this was a modest way to put it—neither pro-war nor anti-war, in fact, and leaving generous room for opposing views.
   Some disagreed, and relayed their own experiences where they said they had anti-war friends who respected the troops who returned. That is great—and it answered the ‘I don’t know’ part. I am glad that my friend’s brother’s experience was not shared by other troops. If his experience was in the minority, then it is valuable to know that so that people can focus more on other reasons leading to their suicides.
   But then we had to have the loony fringe:

Yup. I'm going to go out on a limb and say jackyan is a liar.

Hey jackyan, you're a liar.

   I thanked the writer for taking the guilty-till-proved-innocent approach. We also had:

Jachyan - just making up ways to blame the anti-war folks for this, huh?

I'm with humanerror - I smell a lie.

   Sad, really.
   I don’t expect anyone to check out my background and find out I ran for a party with staunch anti-war, anti-imperialist policies, but to call a man a liar shows how low some people are today. Or to find out that I have been attacking the technocratic way on which this planet’s economy is run for a long time—and that I believe these very ideas have been responsible for many wars and deaths.
   Disagree, agree or inform, but calling a man a liar is a last resort where I come from. I’ve had disagreements, sometimes pretty “vocal” ones, but I like to think I approach them from the spirit of advancing conflicting views as we all seek the truth. Perhaps calling someone a liar isn’t a big deal these days? And isn’t their behaviour, where they’d attack a regular guy for stating his view, confirming the existence of the type of person who would also spit on returning US troops? ‘Hey boys and girls, you’re fighting for people who don’t give a s*** about honour. Yours, their own, or that of anyone else who they perceive to be less extreme than they are.’
   Folks, we regular people are allowed to have a voice, too, and while we might not be spouting hate on the internet, we actually outnumber you.
   I can only imagine that their pasts contain a majority of people in their lives who have lied to them, hence their willingness to take this as their first position—in which case I feel very sorry for the sad world they must have grown up in. They then see a neutral, apolitical comment as pro-war, not realizing that not everyone belongs to the fringe. How everyday life must anger them regularly. How do they get through the day? Fuming, blood pressure boiling?
   The great irony is these who are quite willing to attack others’ honour exhibit the very opposite of the pacifism and progressiveness that they say they stand for. An automatic mistrust goes against basic human values and even my own belief in humanism. In my book these people are more likely to be the type who would start wars if they were given the power to do so, based on their over-reaction to everyday viewpoints being advanced, and their inability to disagree in a normal fashion. They are the type to strike first and reason later, and we should be thankful the internet is a way they can vent without really harming others.
   And those of us who are more centrist with our views—the overwhelming majority of us who are OK with civilized discussion—should not feel shy in expressing ourselves.

Again, only the Greens seem to be raising a stink in Parliament (National is silent) about the new BMW limousines on order for governmental use.
   As co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons pointed out, the new BMW 730Lds on order from the Bavarian automaker contravenes even the government’s own directives for fuel economy.
   The cars, at least based on list prices, are essentially twice the price of the Ford Fairlanes they are succeeding. The government’s defence, that the Fairlanes will be deleted from Ford Australia’s range, falls on deaf ears, since the rival Holden Statesman is still being made, and sold at a comparable price.
   The Dog & Lemon Guide has warned that maintaining the cars will be pricey, too.
   I happen to agree with the opinions of both Ms Fitzsimons and the Guide’s editor, Clive Matthew-Wilson. These cars will send the wrong message: that politicians are somehow above the rest of us (consider who normally buys 7-series BMWs). Additionally, the cars are a bad choice environmentally—contravening the country’s green image.
   We know that this Labour Government and the opposition National Party both think they are above the rest of us and that they have no trouble with hypocrisy.
   I predict that what might happen is that everyday motorists will block these BMW limousines out of a sense of injustice.
   I still remember the days when Prime Minister Robert Muldoon drove his own Triumph 2500S to work and got stuck in traffic like the rest of us.
   Security might deem that unsafe but as the Irish newspaper points out today, even Ms Fitzsimons drives to work in her own 1·3-litre car.
   There has to be a happy medium, maybe having a diplomatic protection police officer accompany the PM if she wishes to drive to work.
   This is spending at a time when we should be more prudent with taxpayer funds, especially in upcoming years.
   While Mr Matthew-Wilson believes a Toyota Crown or Lexus would be a better bet, I was remarking to myself how the diesel Škoda Superb would be quite good today.
   The Superb is one of the most economical diesels I have tested and the legroom—more than an old Mercedes-Benz S-class—is more than suitable for our MPs.
   I have wondered why even taxi fleets have shied away from the Czech-built car here as it affords far more comfort than the Toyota Camry that is fast becoming the choice of cabbies in Wellington.
   And at NZ$59,990 for the current model (to be replaced next year), it makes infinitely more sense than the BMW.
   If the Superb is good enough for the President of the Czech Republic, it is more than enough for our ministers—which reveals that the decision to go with BMW could not have been motivated by proper policy considerations. Something is rotten in Denmark, but we’ve known that for years.
   Choosing a long-wheelbase BMW at this point makes us look more like Red China—oh, hang on—maybe that is the message.
   What a pity National is not taking the opportunity to use this against Labour—again John Key has not been able to see the massive bullseye target painted on the Internal Affairs’ Minister.

I believe Sen. Barack Obama is right to have admitted to drug use, including cocaine, in his youth. It serves several purposes:

• disarming Republicans or journalists who want to snoop;
• if he’s prepared to admit to this, then it’s unlikely he has more skeletons in his closet.

And one of his campaigners gave a good response when it was raised privately by someone working for the Clinton campaign: ‘Senator Clinton’s campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he’s talked about the lessons he’s learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country. He plans on winning this campaign by focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people.’
   It actually sounds like the sort of line Bill Clinton used in 1992.
   However, I am worried on numerous counts. I would prefer a leader who had stronger principles as a young lad, showing that it is possible to not take a ruinous path. I have a problem with the prospect that young people will say, ‘Hey, I am smoking pot, and it works for me now, so dammit, I’ll just keep doing it till I have the realization Barack Obama did.’
   It takes the responsibility of refraining from drug use away.
   I admire Sen. Obama for owning up to his past and telling us the lessons he learned—but I do not think I would run for office if I had his history. Then, being drug- and tobacco-free, I cannot truly say I know how he thinks. Maybe this is a good way to remove a lot of the guilt and to encourage those who have taken drugs to get off them. Personally, however, I don’t see it.
   Sen. Obama comes across, image-wise, negatively to me—not because of the drug past but he just seems like yet another typical politician. As with Sen. Clinton or Mr Giuliani, he tries to say politically nice things.
   I think Americans might want a straight talker as their 44th President. I still don’t know what half of these candidates vying for their party’s nomination stand for based on their voting record or press statements. And when I do, they come across as hypocritical.