December 25th, 2010


(no subject)

A common tactic in politics is to point out hypocrisy. If someone says 'you should do X', it is an often used tactic to say 'well you don't do X'.

Do you think this is a valid tactic? Does it discount the message if the messanger does not follow it? Is this a case of shooting the messenger?

Or do you believe this is more a case of 'those without sin cast the first stone' and that we really should discount an assertion if the messenger is not following it? Or not even the messenger but 'the other side of the isle'?


My personal opinion is two things. First, I find it very common that if someone says 'the Republicans should do so and so' the excuse is 'well the democrats, in my opinion, don't have that value or do that thing'. I think that this is no excuse. If someone says that the democrats should do so and so, talk about whether they should or shouldn't, and then move on to other organizations. We shouldn't take the relative 'its ok if they do it'. It shouldn't be an excuse. So, suffice to say, I find myself in the first category. Hypocrisy sucks and all, but it shouldn't be used to discount assertions. I think we focus on it way too much.

I often find the real hatred of 'the other side' is their perceived hypocrisy. Its not necessarily that a person hates what they're advocating, but that they're hypocrites in advocating it. Its strange, but so often I find that to be the underlying hatred of 'the other side'. Its that they're hypocrites.

Why is that such a big deal to us? Why is it such an often used tactic? If it because it's easy to paint the other side as hypocritical purely using opinion?

(no subject)

He Found Bag of Cash, But Did the Unexpected

He gave the backpack to the Tempe Community Action Agency, the social service organization where he volunteers, whose officials managed to trace it to Bryan Belanger, an Arizona State University student who lost the money while on his way to buy a used car.

What a great feel-good story, right? Homeless man finds money, gives it back, totally unexpected. Why is it unexpected? Does the media really think that people expect homeless people to be immoral like that? Do you think that?

Of course, the real kicker is glossed over.

“I would have spent every last cent,” said Will Colby, 30, who was sitting on a bench with friends trying to get enough spare change for a motel room. “I’d be in a resort in Mexico right now.”

His companion, a woman who identified herself as E.T., said she once found $1,400 in cash in an envelope next to an A.T.M. and did not think twice about keeping it. “I stayed in a motel for a long time on that money,” she said.

So, the article presents two homeless people who would have kept the money and not thought twice about it, and two homeless people who would have turned it in (one of whom actually did). Does that make the article fair and balanced?

So, if you were homeless, would you have kept the money or turned it in?
  • agk_ru

John Kaminski

Today I ran upon a reference to John Kaminski's site.

I was really stunned by the force of both the ideas and the way the guy expresses them.

This is what he tells in his interview of December 7:

"We (Americans) allow the bankers families to have all the private property in the US, THE BOLSHEVIKS STYLE".

What do you think of it? Is this guy known to the public?