![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
 |
| even that damnably noxious weed scotch broom. |
Jun. 30th, 2009
does not compute
Jun. 30th, 2009 03:51| joely skye | feral | 67883 words | $5.50 |
| joely skye | beautiful monster | 20235 words | $13.50 |
at that bottom price, i am not buying. the book is a third of the length of the first. what is samhain (the publisher) thinking? there are no ratings on fictionwise more than a week after its release, which means hardly anyone is buying it.
which is a crying shame, because i like joely skye's writing. but i am not paying those amounts for an e-book. and i no longer buy print if i can at all help it (not much room for books on the boat).
the minnesota supreme court decided against norm coleman, and he's now actually conceded.
i've heard it argued (in the context of politics) that for liberals hypocrisy is the greatest sin, while for {religious} conservatives belief in the right values is more important, even if one occasionally fails at upholding them (because humans are imperfect sinners who are bound to fail at times).
as a broad generalization, i am inclined to believe that conservatives tell themselves that, and i have taken it under consideration when analyzing political events. but frankly, i think looking closely at actual cases makes them often hypocritical even under their own rules for behaviour.
it does make sense in certain situations -- a religious conservative who believes that homosexuality is deeply wrong will rail against it, and vote against it, but might succumb to the temptation if he has homosexual urges, and will afterwards profusely apologize for his failure -- and be forgiven by many of his constituents. rinse, lather, repeat (though usually much more quietly).
while an outright gay liberal will never be forgiven by those people, even if he lives in a monogamous relationship and never cheats -- because he holds the "wrong" belief that being gay and acting on it is acceptable.
what doesn't fit with this model are examples of conservaties being forgiving of conservatives who do bad act X and apologize, but not of {religious} liberals who do bad act X and apologize. edwards boo, sanford yay. how come?
or norm coleman, who argued at the end of the election that al franken should concede for the good of the voters -- but who didn't concede himself when the totals looks favourable for al franken, and instead dragged the whole thing out all the way to the minnesota supreme court (who decided for al franken just today). coleman deprived minnesota of a senator for 6 months, while he originally asked franken to consider the voters of minnesota. first he wasn't in favour of counting every legitimate vote, then he was in favour of counting even illegitimate votes if it would get him ahead.
coleman is just an example of this (and he's of a different religion); but i have oodles of them (and with christians). how is that sort of thing not hypocrisy first and foremost? coleman seems to very clearly have different rules for himself and his opponent, not one set of rules for everyone which he occasionally fails too.
and in how far does expected failure and forgiveness-when-apologizing drive continued failure? sanford promised his wife fidelity, and failed. when she found out, he promised her again, and failed again. how often can one repeat that cycle before realizing one needs to change something in a fundamental way? psychologically this strikes me asinsane impractical and foolish decisionmaking.
i actually wanted to go elsewhere with this noodling, but it'll have to wait until i've had some food with which to feed my neurons.
i've heard it argued (in the context of politics) that for liberals hypocrisy is the greatest sin, while for {religious} conservatives belief in the right values is more important, even if one occasionally fails at upholding them (because humans are imperfect sinners who are bound to fail at times).
as a broad generalization, i am inclined to believe that conservatives tell themselves that, and i have taken it under consideration when analyzing political events. but frankly, i think looking closely at actual cases makes them often hypocritical even under their own rules for behaviour.
it does make sense in certain situations -- a religious conservative who believes that homosexuality is deeply wrong will rail against it, and vote against it, but might succumb to the temptation if he has homosexual urges, and will afterwards profusely apologize for his failure -- and be forgiven by many of his constituents. rinse, lather, repeat (though usually much more quietly).
while an outright gay liberal will never be forgiven by those people, even if he lives in a monogamous relationship and never cheats -- because he holds the "wrong" belief that being gay and acting on it is acceptable.
what doesn't fit with this model are examples of conservaties being forgiving of conservatives who do bad act X and apologize, but not of {religious} liberals who do bad act X and apologize. edwards boo, sanford yay. how come?
or norm coleman, who argued at the end of the election that al franken should concede for the good of the voters -- but who didn't concede himself when the totals looks favourable for al franken, and instead dragged the whole thing out all the way to the minnesota supreme court (who decided for al franken just today). coleman deprived minnesota of a senator for 6 months, while he originally asked franken to consider the voters of minnesota. first he wasn't in favour of counting every legitimate vote, then he was in favour of counting even illegitimate votes if it would get him ahead.
coleman is just an example of this (and he's of a different religion); but i have oodles of them (and with christians). how is that sort of thing not hypocrisy first and foremost? coleman seems to very clearly have different rules for himself and his opponent, not one set of rules for everyone which he occasionally fails too.
and in how far does expected failure and forgiveness-when-apologizing drive continued failure? sanford promised his wife fidelity, and failed. when she found out, he promised her again, and failed again. how often can one repeat that cycle before realizing one needs to change something in a fundamental way? psychologically this strikes me as
i actually wanted to go elsewhere with this noodling, but it'll have to wait until i've had some food with which to feed my neurons.
