I suppose congratulations are in order.
Over the past 40-odd years, the American Left has consistently chiseled away at the values and mores that built a nation, employing pretzel logic, ridicule, double standards, and a thinly veiled contempt for those in society who refused to adopt the “modern view” of how society should view itself. The effect of this ongoing assault has been as subtle as it has been pernicious, as listening to the talk of the day’s news and scandals reveals.
First up, we have the unfortunately named Tony Wiener, Representative from New York, and lowbrow demagogue.
Tony’s Twitter account made news this week when a picture of a boxer brief covered penis was sent through his twitter account to a young co-ed at a college in the state of Washington. Tony, predictably, alleged his account had been hacked, and he immediately
contacted the authorities and filed a criminal complaint lawyered up and hired a tech consulting firm to find out how the hack had happened. However, many people were still inclined to believe him, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt, so he had to tell a reporter who asked if the picture was of him that he couldn’t say “With Certitude” if it was him, thus failing the smell test for wives nationwide. The story still enjoys a life of its own, due in no small part to the Congressman’s last name, which with the subject material, has caused this story to have a life of its own. The real story is that Wiener, a vicious little toad who wants desperately to be taken seriously, can’t say if the picture is of him? Why are there pictures of his crotch in existence at all? And why is a man in his 40s who is married interacting at all with young female tweet followers anyway?
Second, we have noted scumbag John “Two Americas” Edwards.
It wasn’t enough that Edwards cheated on his dying wife with a much younger woman during his run for President and Vice President. It wasn’t enough that he then lied about fathering a child with the mistress, and tried to get an aid to take responsibility for his indiscretions and virility. Now, according to a federal grand jury, this multimillionaire used campaign funds to pay to keep his mistress kept and under wraps.
Of course, both are not without their supporters, who are quick to say things like “What does it matter that the Congressman sent a picture of his crotch to a comely young co-ed? That is a matter for him and his wife.” or “Edwards is being indicted for having an affair.’ Both positions ignore a significant root truth. If these men were not worthy of the trust that their wives put in them, they are not worthy of the trust of voters. What’s more, do we want to be represented by people who are so easily swayed from their commitments? If the people who sleep with them can’t trust them, what makes you think that they will remain loyal to constituents?
The ugly truth that any Republican would share with you is that it isn’t “a private matter” when a public official doesn’t take these commitments seriously. And it is a truth that is well-known by the media, who would take every opportunity to shame officials who had committed similar offenses if that (R) resided after their name. So what makes Democrats different? Nothing. Having the (D) after their name doesn’t mean that they are more trustworthy. It means that the Press, which is supposed to be the eyes of society, and the Democratic constituencies have much lower expectations for these candidates. It shows in their excuses (Everyone does this, It was just this one time, It is between them and their spouse, It isn’t the public’s business). And it is conspicuous in the questions that they don’t ask, such as “Congressman, why shouldn’t we consider your judgment suspect when it is obvious that you enjoy photographing your privates?” or “Can you explain for us why it is right and proper for a 40-something married Congressman to be conversing with a 20-something college student about anything?” or the more pointed “What would you say to the girl’s father, or your constituents who might be parents to 20-something young college students about your conduct?”
And in the case of someone like John Edwards, similar questions could be asked, along with a more pointed “How do you think your children feel about your infidelity and lying?”
The defenders of these men and others like them will, of course say “You don’t have any right to make those kinds of judgments.”, but they are wrong. No man is perfect, and as a result, no man has a right to expect perfection. What we do have a right to expect is that the people we elect to public office will not prove themselves unworthy of the trust that we place in them, and that when they are caught betraying the trust that others have put in them, be it the trust of their spouses, or the trust of a voter, that they respect us enough to not lie to us about it, and to ask their defenders not to insult our intelligence with ridiculous denials like “Justice Thomas’ supporters hacked his Twitter account to make him look bad” or to call those with enough dignity to demand an acknowledgement of shame from those bathing in it hypocrites for demanding it of the people who asked them for their trust.
It isn’t hypocrisy to expect a certain course of conduct from those who ask us for our trust; it is hypocrisy to only hold one group to a set of standards and make excuses for the other’s bad behavior. It is gross negligence to do it in a way that continues to draw attention from that point, which is the one that really matters. That kind of sloppy thinking is why the third point is an issue. Because there is a story, which says nothing pleasant or right about us, but it is concealed by the misdirection and dishonesty that marks the discussion of his notoriety.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian is dead.
And Hell’s demons welcome one of their own home.
I lived in Michigan during the time in which this grisly murderer was making his house calls, and obliterating his Hippocratic Oath. There are those who will maintain that there is a “right” to “die with dignity”, and that Kevorkian was a “pioneer” who helped to spark the euthanasia debate in this country. I doubt if, in retrospect, those patients of his who were discovered in motel rooms, or the one whose kidneys the good doctor removed and offered to the first taker would agree that they met their end with the degree of dignity that they sought to preserve. But then considering the fact that several of the people he ushered out of life’s embrace were not terminally ill, but were depressed, or that it was his actions, not those of his patients, which actually caused their deaths, I too see the man as a pioneer of sorts…a prolific mass murderer who had the unique distinction of being upfront about his actions, and largely managing to avoid the consequences for them, at least until now.
I won’t celebrate his life, but I will, at least, gratefully acknowledge his death.