Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Liberal Hypocrisy book review


Spaceman Spiff

Recommended Posts

Was forwarded this review in my email, so there's no website available and I don't know where it came from or who wrote it.

Anyway, it's for this book called "Do As I Say, (Not As I Do), Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" by Peter Schweizer. I dunno who Schweizer is and I dunno what his MO is, but I was just wondering how reputable he is. Also wondering if anyone out there has read his book.

Seems like people from both sides are writing inflammatory books like these to make a quick buck.

the review:

Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy

Members of the liberal left exude an air of moral certitude. They pride themselves on being selflessly committed to the highest ideas and seem particularly confident of the purity of their motives and the evil nature of their opponents. To correct economic and social injustice, liberals support a whole litany of policies and principles: progressive taxes, affirmative action, greater regulation of corporations, raising the inheritance tax, strict environmental regulations, children’s rights, consumer rights, and much, much more.

But do they actually live by these beliefs? Peter Schweizer decided to investigate in depth the private lives of some prominent liberals: Politicians like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, and Ralph Nader; commentators like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, and Cornel West: entertainers and philanthropists like Barbara Streisand and George Soros. Using everything from real estate transactions, IRS records, court depositions, and their own public statements, he sought to examine whether they really live by the principles they so confidently advocate.

What he found was a long list of glaring contradictions. Michael Moore denounces oil and defense contractors as war profiteers. He also claims to have no stock portfolio, yet he owns shares in Halliburton, Boeing, and Honeywell and does his postproduction work in Canada to avoid paying union wages in the United States. Noam Chomsky opposes the very concept of private property and calls the Pentagon “the worst institution in human history,” yet he and his wife have made millions of dollars in contract work for the Department of Defense and own two luxurious homes. Barbra Streisand prides herself as an environmental activist, yet she owns shares in a notorious strip-mining company. Hillary Clinton supports the right of thirteen-year-old girls to have abortions without parental consent, yet she forbade thirteen-year-old Chelsea to pierce her ears and enrolled her in a school that would not distribute condoms to minors. Nancy Pelosi received the 2002 Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farm Workers, yet she and her husband own a Napa Valley vineyard that uses nonunion labor.

Schweizer’s conclusion is simple: liberalism in the end forces its adherents to become hypocrites. They adopt one pose in public, but when it comes to what matters most in their own lives-their property, their privacy, and their children-they jettison their liberal principles and embrace conservative ones. Schweizer thus exposes the contradiction at the core of liberalism: if these ideas don’t work for the very individuals who promote them, how can they work for the rest of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the instances he cites are probably true, which is why the Liberals are mad as hell about this book being published. Let's not give the Repubs a free pass, I'm quite sure they do the same things too...only... it's looked upon as being wrong for the Repubs to do it... just fine for the Left. It's the "what's good for the goose (Dems) isn't good for the gander(Repubs)" philosophy.

The question is... when will Katie Couric or Matt Lauer be interviewing the author of this book.... affording the same time that Kitty Wells was given to promote her book about the Bush family? Humm.... I won't hold my breath......:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the instances he cites are probably true, which is why the Liberals are mad as hell about this book being published. Let's not give the Repubs a free pass, I'm quite sure they do the same things too...only... it's looked upon as being wrong for the Repubs to do it... just fine for the Left. It's the "what's good for the goose (Dems) isn't good for the gander(Repubs)" philosophy.

The question is... when will Katie Couric or Matt Lauer be interviewing the author of this book.... affording the same time that Kitty Wells was given to promote her book about the Bush family? Humm.... I won't hold my breath......:doh:

Are they really mad about this being published? I haven't heard much about this book, but the allegations seem pretty serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think these allegations are serious at all. At least not to the important people. Michael moore is a douchebag. If you need a book to tell you that, you're not much higher than him on the totem pole.

The charges against serious democrats are laughable though. Oh no, hillary wouldn't let her daughter get her ears pierced! Where's kenneth starr?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be somewhat interested to know how much they own in all those nasty corporations.

Do they own 50,000 shares? Or do they have money in a mutual fund that owns 1% of Company X?

And since when does "and own two luxurious homes" render someone morally unfit to dislike the Pentagon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be somewhat interested to know how much they own in all those nasty corporations.

Do they own 50,000 shares? Or do they have money in a mutual fund that owns 1% of Company X?

And since when does "and own two luxurious homes" render someone morally unfit to dislike the Pentagon?

Well if Noam opposes the the concept of private property...

Thats what I was curious about, how many shares they have, etc. How solid are these claims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they really mad about this being published? I haven't heard much about this book, but the allegations seem pretty serious.

No, I actually find books like this laughable. It really shows how far the right has to go to slander the other side now.

Look at how he proposes the "hypocrisy" in terms of stock dealings. Since when is loosing money a liberal belief? I myself own Haliburton stock because I want to make money, I despise the company but I'm not an idiot. When you have the CEO of a company become VP, it would be idiotic NOT to invest in the company. . . ESPECIALLY when their primary source of income is the US government. I seperate my monetary life from my ideology because I'm not a moron.

I wouldn't go and invest in environmental industries under the Bush administration, hell that's just bad investing. I have stock in a number of republican industries, that was simply smart investing, and it has nothing to do with my ideology. Just because I own a few shares of Haliburton stock does not mean I can't have an opinion on if they are doing anything right. In fact, I think my opinion should hold MORE validity, because I am directly going against my best interest.

Maybe others think owning a stock of a company you personally think is bad for the world is a hypocrisy, but I think it is good investing.

BTW, I own under 100 shares of Halliburton, so it isn't like I am investing billions of dollars in the company. If you were a MAJOR share holder and owned over 1% of the company, then you wouldn't have the opinion that the company was bad either. That's why I don't blame rich people for being republicans. . . they should be. I blame the middle class American who is working two jobs, because he is voting against his best interest.

:2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever happened to that Hilary book that was going to take her down?

I wonder what impact this would have if people were still paying attention.

However, I heard that American Idol is coming back on soon, and there were roadside bombs somewhere.

Oh yeah, and trained Military folks from America used their training to paint a school (wanted to balance the good and the bad)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame the middle class American who is working two jobs, because he is voting against his best interest.

:2cents:

Actually, there have been studies done that suggest that the vast majority of voters are actually voting against their best interests.

I don't have the link or anything, but this is the just of it: Almost every "red state" receives more federal money than it gives in taxes. Almost every "blue state" receives less federal money than it gives in taxes.

Yet the red states consistently vote in favor of smaller government, even though they are the ones being helped the most by big government. The blue states consistently vote in favor of bigger government, even though they are really being pickpocketed by the government, receiving less aid than they should given how much they are taxed.

This is open for debate, of course, since it doesn't seem like Republicans are really in favor of small government anymore. And maybe it is sociologically the way it should be, those who receive the most don't appreciate it, and those who receive the least don't realize it.

In the end, both sides vote against their best interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...