Hypocrisy?

Does the hypocrisy never end?  Or am I just too hard on people?

I saw the other day where the head of Apple is refusing to give any assistance to the GOP Convention in Cleveland.  His rationale is that Don Trump is a bad man, that he shouldn't be President, let alone the Republican nominee.  And, of that I agree.

The head of Apple, whose name I forget, cited Trump's own words, his plans, etc., which he called discriminatory toward Muslims, women, other minorities, etc.  So, let me get this straight.  Trump is vilified for his anti-Muslim stance(s), esp regarding immigrants from the Middle East to the US; yet Apple continues to do business with these same Middle Eastern countries, the very bad men who run them.  (If you haven't noticed, there are no democracies in the Middle East.)  It's not OK to say bad things about Muslims, but it is OK to be business partners with people who persecute, torture, and murder their own people, who keep women in a state of near slavery, etc.

I was sent an article about this today, but I know I've written about this hypocrisy before, in the Middle East, in China, in Russia, in Cuba, etc.  I am aware of the argument, that trade will benefit the people, allow for general prosperity in these countries, benefiting the lot of many people.  (Hey, isn't this the "trickle-down" theory, so lambasted by the progressives when it is applied to the US?  But never fear.  Even if it won't work here, it surely will work in these oppressed countries, right?)

So, what good has come of all this trade from Apple, the auto companies, banks, etc.?  Lots, right?  I haven't double checked these statistics, but have no reason to disbelieve them.  They sound about right and match what I do know.  Despite all the oil wealth received by the Arab world (and trade with Western companies?), about 20% of the people there live on less than $2 a day, yes, a day.  More than 60 million of those people are illiterate and, no doubt, due to their rotten status, most of them are women. This one is hard to believe, yet fits in what I've written about before.  In the last 1000 years, the Arabs have translated fewer books than Spain translates in a year!  Apparently the only book that counts in the Quran.    And suppose these "facts" are off and only 10% or 20% are true?  Right......

This holds with what I believe.  The Arab world has never experienced an Enlightenment, nothing like the 18th Century movement that spawned the rights enjoyed by Americans and many in the West.  Those rights, esp for certain groups, didn't appear overnight, but evolved, too slowly, but at least they did evolve.  Remember, 400 years ago, Christians were also murdering Christians (Catholics v Protestants) over faith (like Sunnis v Shiites).  Women were also treated as distinct inferiors.  We can make a number of analogies.  But then came the Enlightenment, the offspring of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Age of Exploration.

Where the Arab world was once very advanced in the science and technology of the Middle Ages, now it is backward.  The pioneers in geometry and other math, astronomy, medicine (surgery, hospitals, pharmacies), and even literature and art have become backward, clinging to the past that permits public hangings, beheadings, etc.  There will be no peace with Islam, or at least much of it, until there is some sort of Arabic/Islamic Enlightenment.

I got a real laugh out of a Clinton attack on Trump today.  She said something about all of Trump's business ventures seem to "end up in Chapter 11."  That's a good one and it calls for a response from Trump.  He might make a similar claim, about how Clinton's political and legal ventures end up in indictments, investigations, even "Vince Foster" endings.  Clinton v Trump!  If there's any time where divine intervention is needed, it's right now!

I saw some report from the Atty-Gen where all references to "Islamic terrorism [or] extremism" are to be redacted from the official FBI reports on Orlando.  Hmmm.......  Does this surprise anyone?  Look at how Obama so quickly jumped on the AR-15 (which I'm not even sure was the weapon used there).  It is revealing to hear Obama and other anti-gun folks pontificate on this.  They don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about.  They have led most Americans to believe, for instance, that the "AR" in the AR-15 stands for "automatic rifle."  It does not!  It comes from the name of the manufacturer back 50 or 60 years ago.  Even one of the list serves to which I belong focused, not on the animal who pulled the trigger(s), but on the guns.  Maybe I am missing the boat here, but that seems very misguided, at best.  If a guy goes out and gets loaded and crashes his car, for example, into a crowd of people, killing many, do we focus on the car?  "Let's ban cars!" or the alcohol?  "Let's return to Prohibition!"  (Where maybe the federal gov't can deliberately poison US citizens again?)  No, the cause is the drunk, not the car, not the booze.  So why is it different with shooters?  Again, I'm willing to listen to disagreement here, but I can't follow the logic/illogic.

BTW, Karen was watching the boob tube the other day (last week?) when Obama gave his speech in Orlando.  Who in his right mind still thinks the man is the most eloquent Presidential speaker "since Jefferson?"  He bumbled his way through his talk.  And no, I don't believe he was overcome with emotion, not at all.  I still chuckle at the folks, back when, who said that, Obama the "most eloquent" President since Jefferson.  Apparently they forgot about at least one other guy who deserves at least a little consideration--Abraham Lincoln.  Maybe they haven't read any of his speeches, which, BTW, he wrote himself.