Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Why Society Needs Hypocrisy
WARNING: This post doesn't contain any slapstick, puns, or punch lines.
For all the readers still reading, this monologue, by Rush Limbaugh, bares repeating. Enjoy!
RUSH: One more thing about Mark Sanford, before we go to the break and get back to your phone calls. I would posit something here. And there's a lot of people. I've gotten a lot of e-mail since the Sanford story broke: "See, Rush? This is why Republicans have to get rid of social issues. We just have to get rid of them, because this hypocrisy is going to kill us. People are people; human beings are human beings. They're going to have affairs. They're going to have abortions. They're going to do this. And in politics, we're going to lose people. People are going to have affairs. Democrats don't lose people when they're hypocrites because they aren't hypocrites, Rush, because they don't have standards and we do. So we've got to get rid of the social issues, Rush." I'm hearing this from a lot of people. It's something for you to think about. Just a little think piece here. How about the fact that society needs hypocrisy? (interruption)
I'll be happy to explain it, Snerdley. It's simple as pie. I shouldn't have to explain it, but I'll be glad to. I'm not saying hypocrisy is a virtue, but it is a necessary evil. Society needs it. "But, Rush! But, Rush! How can you say that? Isn't hypocrisy preaching moral values and not living up to them?" Yeah, that's exactly right! That's what, in this case, hypocrisy is. But hypocrisy does not deny moral values. If somebody can be immoral and not be a hypocrite, then what's happened to standards? You want a party run by a bunch of people who have no standards? You've got it. You've got it in the Democrat Party and you've had it for years -- and look where it has taken us! Hypocrisy does two things, both at the same time: Hypocrisy shows -- and you're not going to want to hear this.
You're not going to want to agree with me on this. I know you're not. But hypocrisy shows that there are moral values in a culture. Without moral values in a culture, it would not be possible for anybody to be a hypocrite. The fact that we are calling Sanford a hypocrite is the proof that there are still standards of dignity and morality that apply in our society. It also shows... This hypocrisy, it also shows that violating those moral values are wrong. We all think Sanford's an idiot, right? We all think he's stupid. We all think he's wrong. Especially when you read the statement his wife issued. His wife said, "I'm willing to take him back. I'm willing." She said, "I view my life. I've got one legacy in my life, and that's the character and dignity I instill in my children," and that's why what my husband has done is so hurtful and so harmful.
"All the work I've done helping to get him elected and helping him do his job means nothing to me if my kids don't turn out." Why does she care? Well, because morality and dignity matter. And without hypocrisy, we wouldn't know what morality and dignity are. But moral equivalency, on the other hand, that rationalizes away any morality. The Democrat Party exists on moral equivalence. The Democrat Party exists on the concept of defining deviancy down to where nothing is wrong and nobody can be criticized. And I think any healthy society needs moral values -- and, therefore, must preserve them. Hypocrisy is a lot more helpful in preserving morality than moral equivalence is.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a culture with no morality, where anything goes and there is nothing wrong. Then you wouldn't have to worry about raising your kids. Just give birth and let them do what they want to do. It doesn't matter because there's nothing wrong. But you know there are. You know there are certain things -- and, by the way, since we're all human and we all stray and we all stray off the path, it doesn't mean morality is wrong and it doesn't disqualify somebody who strays from knowing what morality is. That's what the Democrats try to do. Any Republican who is a normal human failing, they try to disqualify from ever commenting on morality and dignity, and you do not have to live a perfect life in order to be able to comment on morality and dignity because it is impossible to live a perfect life.
We all have that little voice in our heads, our conscience. We all know when we're doing something wrong. We all know it. If we just listen to the voice in our heads more often than we do, then we'd do fewer things wrong. But we're human. It doesn't mean that we're disqualified from knowing right from wrong, just because we violate the tenets. So... Look, I'm not speaking in a strict political sense here. I'm not saying, "Let's scrub the social issues." I'm simply saying that, 'Give me a society any day where there is hypocrisy as opposed to a society with moral equivalence,' because then we've defined deviancy so far down that we've decided we can't do anything about that particular wrong so we're not even going to try to anymore. We will cease to exist as a functioning society.
RUSH: Here's Ben in Dayton, Ohio. Hi, Ben. Thank you for calling. You're up next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.
CALLER: Hey Rush, college kid dittos from Dayton.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I'm 21. I'm a student. I'm an engineering student, but theology is kind of one of my passions, and I just loved your analysis on the need for hypocrisy. And I just wanted to add -- I'm kind of borrowing from CS Lewis, but when two people bicker, both people kind of consent to an implied moral standard that the other person should like adhere to. So anyway, I just wanted to say that was a great analysis on your part.
RUSH: CS Lewis is exactly right. Did you understand what he said? When two people argue or bicker over moral standards, it proves they exist. It's all he was saying. There is a push to get rid of moral standards, moral equivalency, the left, the Democratic Party. All I was saying was that hypocrisy is far more useful to a society -- it may not be to a politician, but I'm talking about society, folks. Hypocrisy is far more useful and valuable to society than moral equivalence is. Moral equivalence destroys standards. Hypocrisy upholds them. I'm not suggesting everybody go out and be a hypocrite. Again, it's common sense, and common sense is not liberal or conservative. Well, most often not common sense is conservative. It very rarely is liberal. But common sense is common sense. Moral standards exist. And when you have a blatant case of hypocrisy, I don't care who it is -- JFK, Clinton, Ensign, John Edwards -- what does it show? It shows that we've still got standards. We ought to be going, whew.
www.rushlimbaugh.com
For all the readers still reading, this monologue, by Rush Limbaugh, bares repeating. Enjoy!
RUSH: One more thing about Mark Sanford, before we go to the break and get back to your phone calls. I would posit something here. And there's a lot of people. I've gotten a lot of e-mail since the Sanford story broke: "See, Rush? This is why Republicans have to get rid of social issues. We just have to get rid of them, because this hypocrisy is going to kill us. People are people; human beings are human beings. They're going to have affairs. They're going to have abortions. They're going to do this. And in politics, we're going to lose people. People are going to have affairs. Democrats don't lose people when they're hypocrites because they aren't hypocrites, Rush, because they don't have standards and we do. So we've got to get rid of the social issues, Rush." I'm hearing this from a lot of people. It's something for you to think about. Just a little think piece here. How about the fact that society needs hypocrisy? (interruption)
I'll be happy to explain it, Snerdley. It's simple as pie. I shouldn't have to explain it, but I'll be glad to. I'm not saying hypocrisy is a virtue, but it is a necessary evil. Society needs it. "But, Rush! But, Rush! How can you say that? Isn't hypocrisy preaching moral values and not living up to them?" Yeah, that's exactly right! That's what, in this case, hypocrisy is. But hypocrisy does not deny moral values. If somebody can be immoral and not be a hypocrite, then what's happened to standards? You want a party run by a bunch of people who have no standards? You've got it. You've got it in the Democrat Party and you've had it for years -- and look where it has taken us! Hypocrisy does two things, both at the same time: Hypocrisy shows -- and you're not going to want to hear this.
You're not going to want to agree with me on this. I know you're not. But hypocrisy shows that there are moral values in a culture. Without moral values in a culture, it would not be possible for anybody to be a hypocrite. The fact that we are calling Sanford a hypocrite is the proof that there are still standards of dignity and morality that apply in our society. It also shows... This hypocrisy, it also shows that violating those moral values are wrong. We all think Sanford's an idiot, right? We all think he's stupid. We all think he's wrong. Especially when you read the statement his wife issued. His wife said, "I'm willing to take him back. I'm willing." She said, "I view my life. I've got one legacy in my life, and that's the character and dignity I instill in my children," and that's why what my husband has done is so hurtful and so harmful.
"All the work I've done helping to get him elected and helping him do his job means nothing to me if my kids don't turn out." Why does she care? Well, because morality and dignity matter. And without hypocrisy, we wouldn't know what morality and dignity are. But moral equivalency, on the other hand, that rationalizes away any morality. The Democrat Party exists on moral equivalence. The Democrat Party exists on the concept of defining deviancy down to where nothing is wrong and nobody can be criticized. And I think any healthy society needs moral values -- and, therefore, must preserve them. Hypocrisy is a lot more helpful in preserving morality than moral equivalence is.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a culture with no morality, where anything goes and there is nothing wrong. Then you wouldn't have to worry about raising your kids. Just give birth and let them do what they want to do. It doesn't matter because there's nothing wrong. But you know there are. You know there are certain things -- and, by the way, since we're all human and we all stray and we all stray off the path, it doesn't mean morality is wrong and it doesn't disqualify somebody who strays from knowing what morality is. That's what the Democrats try to do. Any Republican who is a normal human failing, they try to disqualify from ever commenting on morality and dignity, and you do not have to live a perfect life in order to be able to comment on morality and dignity because it is impossible to live a perfect life.
We all have that little voice in our heads, our conscience. We all know when we're doing something wrong. We all know it. If we just listen to the voice in our heads more often than we do, then we'd do fewer things wrong. But we're human. It doesn't mean that we're disqualified from knowing right from wrong, just because we violate the tenets. So... Look, I'm not speaking in a strict political sense here. I'm not saying, "Let's scrub the social issues." I'm simply saying that, 'Give me a society any day where there is hypocrisy as opposed to a society with moral equivalence,' because then we've defined deviancy so far down that we've decided we can't do anything about that particular wrong so we're not even going to try to anymore. We will cease to exist as a functioning society.
RUSH: Here's Ben in Dayton, Ohio. Hi, Ben. Thank you for calling. You're up next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.
CALLER: Hey Rush, college kid dittos from Dayton.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I'm 21. I'm a student. I'm an engineering student, but theology is kind of one of my passions, and I just loved your analysis on the need for hypocrisy. And I just wanted to add -- I'm kind of borrowing from CS Lewis, but when two people bicker, both people kind of consent to an implied moral standard that the other person should like adhere to. So anyway, I just wanted to say that was a great analysis on your part.
RUSH: CS Lewis is exactly right. Did you understand what he said? When two people argue or bicker over moral standards, it proves they exist. It's all he was saying. There is a push to get rid of moral standards, moral equivalency, the left, the Democratic Party. All I was saying was that hypocrisy is far more useful to a society -- it may not be to a politician, but I'm talking about society, folks. Hypocrisy is far more useful and valuable to society than moral equivalence is. Moral equivalence destroys standards. Hypocrisy upholds them. I'm not suggesting everybody go out and be a hypocrite. Again, it's common sense, and common sense is not liberal or conservative. Well, most often not common sense is conservative. It very rarely is liberal. But common sense is common sense. Moral standards exist. And when you have a blatant case of hypocrisy, I don't care who it is -- JFK, Clinton, Ensign, John Edwards -- what does it show? It shows that we've still got standards. We ought to be going, whew.
www.rushlimbaugh.com
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Wonders of US Medicine
A French doctor says 'Medicine in my country is so advanced
that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have
him looking for work in six weeks.'
A German doctor says 'That is nothing; we can take a lung
out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in
four weeks.
The Russian doctor says 'In my country, medicine is so advanced that
we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in
another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks.'
An American doctor, not to be outdone, says 'You guys are
way behind. We recently took a man with no brains out of Illinois,
put him in the White House, and now half the country is looking for work.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)