There have been quite a few reports recently of groups and individuals taking sides seemingly at odds with their stated philosophies. For example:

People for the American Way, a liberal political activist group sided with a school district in Bedford, New York that was sued by a group of parents who claimed that the school district was promoting the establishment of religion (a federal judge rendered a split decision, deciding that some of the district's religious activities were unconstitutional and others were not). Don't liberals generally take the opposite position, that schools should not promote religion? Is it possible that the specific religions allegedly being promoted, such as new age, Zen, witchcraft and the like, influenced their decision to take the stand that they did? Would they have sided with the school board if the religions in question were, say, Baptist or Catholic?

Many vocal advocates of multiculturalism are aghast that the Native American Makah people of the Pacific Northwest recently, in accordance with their culture and traditions that go back thousands of years, participated in harvesting and eating a gray whale. Many of these self-proclaimed "multiculturalists" have espoused outrage in letters to The New York Times and elsewhere, saying that the Makah's culture must "evolve" into something more socially acceptable. I find this to be quite contradictory, coming from those who are always reminding us to celebrate the differences in cultures.

Do you have an example of liberals acting like conservatives, or conservatives acting like liberals? People saying one thing and doing another, not living by the principles that they espouse? People demanding a greater morality from others than they demand of themselves? If you do, send it to me and I will include it here. Hypocrisy, regardless of whether it is from the left or from the right, or anywhere in between, should be exposed for what it is.

Email to Dick

Please do not change the subject line. It is used to sort incoming mail.
I wouldn't want you to end up in the "Spam" folder.


Read what
people are saying
Updated 6/25/99

I understand that most laws usually are compromises that never full satisfy all parties. I am also old enough and wise enough to know that politics is comprised mostly of hidden agendas. But I am still puzzled by a new law regarding school bus safety recently enacted by New York State. It is now the law that a school bus carrying six or more children must have its headlights and taillights lighted at all times. Why six or more kids? Why not any number of kids? If this indeed will protect children from harm what possible objection could anyone have to making the rule apply whenever any child is aboard the bus? Perhaps the politicians are so used to trade-offs and compromise they just couldn't envision an all encompassing, uncompromising law.