10-15-16 Hodgepodge

Of Hypocrites and Predators (but Not Men)

So thoroughly did Michael Hurd nail the hypocrisy on both major sides of this year's all-but-lost presidential contest, that parts of his blog posting on the subject were read aloud by Rush Limbaugh. The below is the meat of the posting:

Hypocrisy is a painful thing to watch. It's beyond laughable to watch the biased media culture and all the Hillary-supporting politicians go Puritanical when it comes to sex. The morally righteous never had this problem with Bill Clinton, and they don't have a problem with Hillary's mind-numbing evasiveness when it comes to partnering with one of the highest profile sexual predators of all time.

Hypocrisy is a symptom. People are hypocrites only when they're evading something big. What the Clintonistas try to hide is they care about only one thing: Power. They don't care about respect for women, because to respect women you first have to respect individuality. Their entire lives have been based on the acquisition of political power and the millions of dollars they receive when that power is peddled and sold on the government market. They care nothing for the preservation of individual rights. They care only about rewarding their donors and advancing their socialist causes.

As for career politicians like John McCain and Paul Ryan, why should anyone care what they think? They are nothing more than managers for the collapsing imperial state. Their squandering of America's Constitution and fiscal future for the sake of their own power trips makes Trump's sleazy comments seem like nothing in comparison. In fact, they are the very reason Donald Trump is the nominee! Their party died on their watch, and they don't want to face it. Instead, they want business as usual. Trump makes them uncomfortable because he reminds them they aren't what they say they are. Their hypocrisy reveals their own sickening evasions.

Speaking about the same brouhaha that is occurring in lieu of substantive debate, Robert Tracinski of the Federalist, notes that this "choice" between sexual predators is a wake-up call:

Instead, this year calls for an intellectual revival. There is only one way to understand the Trump phenomenon: this is the year we decided to try to fix everything without using any ideas. We decided to see what happens if we just look for a strongman, a guy who fights, someone who is totally unscrupulous about using any and every tool of calumny, ridicule, and intimidation against the opposing tribe. When you think about it, both major parties chose their nominees along those lines, though Trump is the more obvious example.

And boy howdy, did we ever get a lesson on why not to do that. If politics is not about ideas, it's just about power and who is willing to be more ruthless in seeking it. That means the kind of personality you're looking for is one of a predator. Maybe we needed to see, just to drive the point home, that when you ask for this, the predators you get are also sexual predators. [bold added]

Regarding the intellectual revival we need, I refer you to Talbot Manvel's piece, linked below.

Weekend Reading

"You can try to influence all you want, but in the end, it is ideas and the willingness to think that determine the actions a person will ultimately take." -- Michael Hurd, in "The Perils of Trying to Control Others" at The Delaware Wave

"What they should be thinking is something like, 'What's wrong with the people who don't appreciate what I have to offer?'" -- Michael Hurd, in "Is Loneliness All in Your Head?" at The Delaware Coast Press

"[B]ut a year later, Lincoln understood that to save the Union he must destroy slavery and started its destruction by signing the Emancipation Proclamation." -- Talbot Manvel, in "Our Moral Compass Can Guide Us" at The Capital Gazette

In More Detail

The Manvel piece makes a connection that desperately bears mention in this year's presidential campaign, which features two life-long Democrats who condone sexual predation, as the front-runners:

We need a party that recognizes that governments providing for the needs of the people are destructive in protecting individual rights because governments must use their powers to take from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots," which violates the rights of the haves. To paraphrase Lincoln, as with slavery there can be no moral right in connection with one man's wealth being made a slave to the needs of another. [bold added]

I oppose both major candidates because I oppose slavery, and I oppose slavery because I value liberty.

Part of Why I Google

The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 fiasco has reminded me of a practice I highly recommend to anyone who has a clever idea, but wants to make sure he has had it first: Search it. A note I jotted down was, "This is the E. Coli of Samsung's Chipotle." Seeing that this morning, I remembered once coming up with, "You can't spell 'Chipotle' without 'E. Coli.'" I loved it, but quickly found that it was already taken, by the Center for Consumer Freedom.

-- CAV