Just a Start...

...for today.

Does money excuse hypocrisy?  Or, am I too critical?  For instance, I heard an ad on a conservative radio station this AM, at least one that has conservative programming/talk show hosts.  The ad was being read (delivered) by a purportedly conservative program host.  But the ad was for a company that was urging people to take advantage of "free" government money, payments for health insurance.  So, a conservative radio station with conservative hosts should be opposed to more government spending (outside of the military, I guess), less government involvement in people's lives (for instance, in health care), and fewer taxes (how the gov't gets this "free" money), shouldn't it?  Why, then, would it promote the principles it opposes, at least theoretically?  Could it be the advertising dollars being brought in by running the ad, from the sponsoring company?  It sure does take away from the image the station tries to promote/portray, at least to me it does.  Again, maybe I am too critical or picky (persnickety?).

And, I heard a conservative radio host last night (The alternative was listening to the Lions--no thanks--or some of that lousy music being blared at us) criticize, rightly, Congress for cutting military retirement benefits that had been promised to veterans when they enlisted.  "They signed up with the promise that these benefits would be there later in their lives.  To deny them that now is despicable."  Yet, I've heard this same guy rip on teacher and other public employee benefits, namely pensions.  I can't speak for most public employees, but I do know that teachers and secretaries were often told their low pay (with minimal raises) would be balanced out by the good pensions (and their pensions are good) they would receive later.  That is, compensation might not be coming now, but would be in the future.  So, why is it not OK to renege on some promises, but is desired to break others??????

I'm curious, too, why many on the left (Oh, let's criticize both sides this AM) demonize one who works hard (I know, I know, "Nobody works hard any more.") for years and even decades, invests his money wisely and persistently, and, as a senior citizen ready for retirement, has accumulated several million dollars.  He's "greedy," "has made money off the backs of the poor," and worse.  What a bad man!  But I never hear these same demonizers attack, say, Hollywood-types/ who make several million dollars in a month or two shooting some likely awful movie.  Nope, these actors and actresses (I still refuse to call women "actors.") are "hard-working," "earn their money," etc.  So, digging a ditch, teaching students, running a mom-and-pop store, creating ads or keeping books, etc. isn't "working hard" or "earning money?"  I wonder what the difference could possibly be??????  Oh, I know what it is.  Look at the politics, no farther.

This "actors/actresses" thing reminds me of a story, several years (OK, several decades) ago.  I am ashamed to admit I was serving on a school committee--shame on me!  But I was naive (stupid?), enough so that I thought they might make differences.  Anyway, the chair of the committee was a woman and I thoughtlessly said something about the "chairman."  I quickly caught myself and repeated, "Sorry, chairwoman."  It wasn't at all snide or sarcastic, but the reply from the chairwoman was.  "It's 'chairperson," she responded with great indignance and officiousness.  "Oh," I said in repeating my apologies.  But I couldn't help but get in my digs, adding, "I guess I'll just call you our 'chairone' from now on."  Oh, the look I got--as I laughed.  And for the rest of that committee's existence--orally or in writing--I referred to the "chairone."