Feel free to rant as the mood strikes.

As to the issue of hypocrisy. Lott’s argument isn’t that people shouldn’t be held to a higher standard or that their failures should be made public. As Lars has tried to articulate, the issue is whether hypocrisy is the worst possible sin in public life.

The issue is one of priorities and focus rather than on wrong or right. If you think Bill Bennett’s gambling was wrong that is fine. But his accusers really don’t think gambling was wrong, they wanted to get Bennett and so used the accusation of hypocrisy to try and bring him down. Lott tries to show that what Bennett did wasn’t really hypocritical and that quite a few of his critics were hypocritical in the way they abandoned their principles on privacy in order to publicly flog one of their enemies.

In the end, Lott argues that our obsession with hypocrisy hinders our moral progress; that it is a comforting but largely empty accusation in its current usage. This in no way means he is in favor of letting leaders and public figures escape legitimate public judgement. He just prefers it be more thoughtful

Meanwhile open perverts with low standards are admired and allowed to lecture everyone. Lott rightly addresses the problem of this uneven playing field.

Cliché’s = truth. Glass houses, two wrongs, actions speak louder, etc….

You can spin anything, if you’re good enough with words and have an audience (key here) that wants or needs to believe you.

Actions do speak louder, which is why anyone who wants to lecture should be held to example.

Maybe a lot of people want to talk about “hypocrisy” — very few want to talk about “sin nature”, which is really where it all starts.

Is it hypocrisy to hold your Pastor or your President (or your favorite talking head) to higher standards? If you don’t apply those standards to your own life, definitely. Is it hypocrisy on their part to dare to occupy positions where they expound or direct or lead in word but possibly not in practice? You betcha.

Is “tolerated hypocrisy” just the same as endorsing the back room, good ol’ boy, business as usual, need to know practices that mark practically every single end justifying use of “necessary evil” and human rights violation in the history of man?

Seems to me that it’s a vote for “white lies”.

Do I care whether Rush is tumescent instead or “right’? Not really. But do I care to know that Enron execs were the largest group of contributors to our President over his political life, or that the guy who owns Clear Channel (where a lot of the sheep get their talking head fix) and runs a successful deregulation PAC (to which all his employees must donate), gives huge amounts of money to elected officials who effectively decide how many sources of news you get? Again, you betcha.

When a man who preaches morals on a radio show to the rest of the nation loses hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling, should that not be public? Are you kidding?

If pedophile priests are put on trial by a blowhard news reader who turns out to be an office predator, shouldn’t you know about both?

Is hypocrisy a problem? Should you care? Is there a right way and a wrong way and not just expediency? Of course there is. But it’s too hard.

By that logic, of course, a serial killer who was open about his murders would be an even greater moral examplar.