"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Dave Weil wrote:


On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
Last month, they were out in full force, roundly
condemning
talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement
that
he
was
addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with
three
Democratic
presidential candidates all but begging for their
condemnation,
the
defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be
seen.
Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of
hours of
radio
broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand
comment
in
which

Why do you even bother with virtually unreadable cut n' pastes?







Perhaps because obnoxious ignoramuses like duh-Mikey don't know any
better?

I did try reformatting it to make it easier for stupid people to read,
but
for reasons unknown to me it didn't seem to make any difference.

All hail Outlook Express!

That right-wing zealot also conveniently glosses over the fact that
what
was
probably some youthful experimentation with marijuana by a few
Democrats
hardly
compares with Limbaugh's illegal use of prescription drugs that are
controlled
substances.

You're right they are worse.

Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.

Not propaganda, an alternate, more objecticve point of view.

There's a good point in there about Democratic presidential candidates
acquiescing to the establishment policy on drugs. However, to downplay
Rush's problems by portraying his views on drug crimes and criminals as
an isolated "off-the-cuff" remark is not quite objective, let alone the
"social libertine" name-calling.

The problem is that Rush has never spoken out about sending people to jail
for addiction to presciption drugs. He's only commented on those who use
drugs soley for recreation.

Calling the candidates hypocrits for
not supporting recreational use of marijuana despite their collective
youthful experimentation doesn't stick.

Let's see how cut and paste works in a non-Microsoft product:

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...754022,00.html

Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?

Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning talk-radio
giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that he was addicted to
prescription painkillers. But now, with three Democratic presidential
candidates all but begging for their condemnation, the defenders of
drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.

Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of radio
broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment in which
Limbaugh bemoaned the social damage wrought by illegal drug use, noting
that offenders "ought to be sent up." Among the social libertines, for
whom the only true sin is the rejection of social libertinism, this was
just too much. Limbaugh was branded a capital-H hypocrite for supposedly
falling short of his own lofty standards.

But if Limbaugh is a hypocrite, then what does that make presidential
candidates Howard Dean, John Kerry and John Edwards?

At last week's "Rock the Vote" debate, all eight Democrats running for
the White House were asked if they had ever used marijuana. Four of the
candidates replied no, with Sen. Joseph Lieberman noting that he was,
once again, "giving unpopular answers in Democratic debates." Carol
Moseley Braun refused to answer. But Dean, Kerry and Edwards admitted --
to loud applause from the MTV-demographic audience -- that they had not
only smoked pot but also, presumably, inhaled.

Does that make them capital-H hypocrites?

As governor of Vermont, Dean worked just last year to kill a bill that
would have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Kerry, who has played both sides of the medical marijuana debate,
declined to co-sponsor legislation authored by fellow Massachusetts
Democrat Rep. Barney Frank that would stop federal agents from harassing
sick patients who use the drug to relieve their suffering.

Edwards has remarked that he has no objection to the Justice
Department's arresting pot-smoking AIDS and cancer patients.

This is just the question of medical marijuana, mind you. While the
candidates might waffle on whether the drug should be made available to
the critically ill, none even pretends to support legalizing it for
recreational uses, the likes of which all three, by their own admission,
have engaged in.

Limbaugh might have once quipped about sending up drug users, but Dean,
Kerry and Edwards, in their capacity as lawmakers, actually have sent up
drug users. And, unlike Limbaugh, the drug they illegally used was never
prescribed to them by a doctor for a legitimate medical condition.

Certainly this should be fodder for the Hypocrisy Police, no?

After all, literally scores, if not hundreds, of pundits quickly seized
the opportunity to stick Limbaugh with the "double-standard" tag. Jesse
Jackson joined the fray. So did Al Franken, who couldn't deny taking
pleasure in Limbaugh's suffering.

Even Kerry got into the act, joking: "There are two ways for you to have
lower prescription drug costs: One is you could hire Rush Limbaugh's
housekeeper or you could elect me president of the United States."

Yet neither Jackson nor Franken -- let alone Kerry or the countless
others all too eager to make sport of Limbaugh's alleged hypocrisy --
have uttered a peep about the three would-be presidents who would jail
cancer victims for using a drug for medical treatment that they've used
for fun.

Apparently only conservatives can be hypocrites.

And apparently the Hypocrisy Police care less about snuffing out
philosophical inconsistencies than in bludgeoning their political
opponents for their personal failings.

Lost on the Hypocrisy Police is that there are two sorts of hypocrisy.
The first is the inevitable consequence of trying to maintain a moral
order in a fallen world. Most everyone disdains lying, cheating or
stealing, for example, yet there's not a person among us who, at one
time or another, hasn't lied, cheated or stolen. Does that make us all
hypocrites? In a sense, yes, but it's better to be a hypocrite than to
live without shame or conscience.

Then there's the second, more odious form of hypocrisy -- paying lip
service to a certain set of standards not because one truly believes in
them, but for opportunistic and manipulative purposes -- i.e., the
minister who insincerely preaches the virtues of tithing because he's
skimming the collection plate.

Or to use a more timely example: The pundit who skewers his political
opponents for "hypocrisy," while turning a blind eye to his political
allies' contradictions.

Like most every other vice, hypocrisy is one from which no one is
immune, least of all the Hypocrisy Police.