Friday, November 21, 2008

A study in hypocrisy ...

... Pot, Meet Kettle. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

Wolff's views may not be above reproach, but they certainly are beneath contempt.

5 comments:

  1. You're too kind, Frank, especially since, after reading the following sentence, both irresponsible and incredibly offensive, “When a tornado tears off a few roofs in Texas, I think, serves you right!” . . . Well, I wonder if even Ivory's gonna be enough of a soap to cleanse my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hating back never stopped the hate, no matter what direction it comes from. If you think this is bad, you should hear some of the rhetoric coming out of California post Prop. 8. From all sides, I might add. Frankly, I wish everyone would just grow up.

    But at the same time, I feel it incumbent to point out that hypocrisy know no bounds. Some of what Wolff is justifiably angry about, even if he expressed it reprehensibly, is the hypocrisy of the right.

    No one, for example, in the "pro life" anti-abortion movement on the far right has yet managed to satisfactorily explain how they can be pro-life yet advocate the murdering of doctors who have performed abortions in the past. If all life is sacred and must be preserved, well, then . . . ?

    The point is, emotion tends to overrun logic, and Wolff succumbed to that. Bad behavior to be sure. But he's hardly alone in it.

    As I said, hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:13 PM

    I don't believe one should apply a political category for an asshole. I've met plenty of assholes on both sides of the political spectrum. Politics rarely enters into it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:16 PM

    Also, Thomas Darlymple is just as guilty in his generalizing of what "modern liberals" and "modern conservatives" are, as Wolff is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, Art, I ain't a hater; but, even if I were, that kind of gratuitously condemnatory jab, IMO, has no place in any discourse (regardless of its fact, fictioneers, or full-of-shit practitioneers). It's simply an utterly cruel slam-blam whack-o-wham, one to which I'd object regardless of who utters it (and, the tragic part is, the one who utters it always comes off looking worse than the target, IMO).

    Years ago, I managed political campaigns here in Canada (right up until the day Bob Rae won the election; and, I never went near another after that happened. He had been such an asshole to so many of the people I knew within the NDP, I actually crossed the floor and never looked back).

    Ed's right, as far as I can see and understand the issues from this side of the border. An asshole's an asshole (unfortunately); and, I guess you eventually learn that an asshole will always remain an asshole.

    I always think of that director who wished cancer upon Ebert (I think it was); and, then, Ebert was struck by it: This, for me, is a fine example of how we inevitably attack ourselves first.

    I can well imagine the rhetoric on both sides of the spectrum over Prop 8; I think it's a good thing the court's allowing an appeal; but, the downslide of that is, of course, the way it will inevitably amplify both the pro- and conners in the battle.

    Andrew Sullivan said something quite sensible in a post of his I read recently, something to the effect the war's been raging for a long time; and now, now is abso-deffo not the time to put your worst foot forward, not with the world watching.

    Conrad nailed it, IMO. Restraint. We all need to practise more restraint; and, sadly, we're not all getting the message.

    The classier an opponent is, the better they look; and, with the whole world watching, now is not the time for anyone to come across as anything but balanced, sincere, authentic, and hopeful. Anything less will do damage to the very cause proponents wish to defend. Just my deux, natch.

    And, you know, Ed, that thought crossed my mind, too; neither party looks very good, when you get right down to it; they both lose; and, that's sorta sad in another way.

    I know I'm pushing my luck; but, it's the only exercise I get so, forgive me: I've always found it either amusing or horrifying that, more often than not, pro-lifers are proponents of the death penalty; and, I often wonder, how do they reasonably justify that contradiction? It's an interesting question (and, yes, this is one that applies to Canadians as well).

    You raise an excellent point, though, one which strikes very close to home for me because I did march in solidarity with women supporting Dr. Morgentaler's right to perform safe and sanitary abortions, to de-ghettoise women's health; and, the guy went through hell, including bombings. I never understood that aspect of the movemet, either. It is the ultimate hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete