I think it has become obvious by now that I despise hypocrisy. It severely diminishes the credibility and relative strength of positions and opinions, political or otherwise. I tend to lean to the left and always welcome a good debate on the facts with conservatives, but I always seem to run into a hypocritical position, which makes my openmindedness towards opposing viewpoints shrink.
1.) Michelle Malkin is a hypocrite.
The conservative author turned blogger opines endlessly on the flaws and failings of the mainstream media.
Seen frequently at:
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
Yet, last night she appeared as a guest host on Hannity & Colmes, one of the most popular shows on one of the most popular cable networks (Fox News) – the epitome of the mainstream media! Popularity makes anything, by definition, mainstream. It is pretty clear that conservatives are conflating the term mainstream with liberal, just as they have conflated Al Qaeda with Iraq, and Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden. Now, it is one thing to label certain areas of the press liberal, which they most certainly are (just as certain areas of the press are certainly conservative). But, a separation and marked differentiation must be used when discussing the mainstream media, which includes both liberal and conservative outlets, and liberal media. Appearing on Hannity & Colmes after providing consistent criticism of the mainstream media (of which this show is undeniably a part of) is a major hypocrisy. This has caused me to view Ms. Malkin’s opinions and writings in a more dubious and incredible light.
2.) Pro-lifers are hypocrites.
Forgetting the fact that pro-lifers believe the government should intrude in the doctor-patient relationship, trash precious and necessary confidentiality rules, and want women to get coathanger abortions instead of hospital-administered ones (because, let’s face it – no matter what the law is, people have always and will continue to get abortions via any means possible), these are the same people that are:
a.) for the death penalty; and
b.) strong supporters of a large and powerful military (even during peacetime) that has the ability to kill more people (honestly, why else does the military exist?); and
c.) favor an extremely aggressive (read lethal) foreign policy towards other nations that pose no threat towards the United States (such as Iraq) instead of focusing on the ones that have actually harbored terrorists that have killed Americans (such as Saudi Arabia).
One argument you usually hear from pro-lifers is that liberals are trying to “play G-d”. An interesting case study of this argument is Terry Schiavo, a Florida woman who has been in a coma for 15 years. She is only alive with the assistance of a feeding tube and her husband believes she would never have wanted to survive this way alone and that the tube should be removed so she can die. Her parents disagree and are suing to keep her alive on the tube. It is predictable what side of the debate the conservatives are on. (Of course, a living will would have taken care of this problem but not many people take the time to draft one nor want to face the reality that they may ever need one.) Now, my question is: Who is really “playing G-d” here? If the conservatives want her to receive electronic assistance to live, aren’t they the ones who are deciding when she should die? Aren’t they, in fact, playing G-d? Wouldn’t taking her off the tube and letting her die of natural causes be much more consistent (the opposite of hypocritical) with G-d deciding when she should die?