The “other” double standard

Most everyone is familiar with the sexual double standard. The male ideal is supposed to be a successful sexual predator renowned for both the level of sexual activity, ability to sexually please partners, willing to exploit any sexual “opportunity”and the ability to use deceit and emotional coercion to overcome resistance. The female ideal is supposed to be a “one man” woman who remains sexually unfulfilled until the wedding night. She must always balance the need to be an attractive mate without “sending out messages” that might invite unwanted sexual advances. After all, if a woman is too sexual then she is “asking for it” and if she is not sexual enough she is “emasculating”.

Using these standards rape is next to impossible unless a man of lower social station is involved with a woman of higher station with next to no previous sexual partners. All too often women are blamed for unwanted sexual activity. After all, men are expected to be predators and women are burdened with the obligation to avoid being an “easy” target. Conversely, men who treat all women with respect – regardless of social status – are considered less than men. While female virgins garner respect male virgins are considered either as “losers” or suspect as to sexual orientation.

We have another double standard in society with regards to personal abuse and dishonesty and governmental or “business” abuse and dishonesty. If one points a gun or knife or bullies a weaker person for money he is a common thief or bandit and is subject to jail, prison,abuse by police, or worse in some societies. If that same person maintains an unsafe work environment and pays low wages – pitting workers against each other in artificially depressed labor markets – and uses cheaper materials and machinery that results in poor health and injury to workers and higher profit margins, that person is revered as a “creator of jobs” and “innovator” who can exploit is “business expertise” for election to higher office. Once in higher office that person can look out for other entrepreneurs by further tilting the “free market” for even lower wages and fewer precautions. If one steals a hundred dollars and/or kills or injures one person it's a long jail term. If one steals millions from labor and endangers and/or kills thousands of people he/she is a “successful business owner”. It's not criminal behavior! It's just “business”.

A similar standard holds true to an even greater extent in government and/or politics. If a person or business misrepresents its behavior to government to steal money or avoid prosecution it is a criminal act. If a politician or government bureaucrat steals your money to lie about an abusive policy or action that abuses or kills people on a massive scale it is considered “a necessary part of governance”. In the War on Drugs government is openly encouraged by Christian Sharia advocates to deliberately lie about “dangerous drugs”. It's not immoral! It's just “politics”. If one criticizes these religious whores it's not righteous indignation it's just a “difference of opinion”.

Unbelievably, many years after the fact, we are aware of numerous instances where serious military intervention or wars were initiated based on false incidences that were either greatly exaggerated or even nonexistent. Is it any wonder why so many people believe that 911 was “an inside job”? And yet, despite this widespread knowledge and the vindication of history, any discussion of “policy differences” that played out years or decades past make absolutely no mention of the deception used by those wielding power to justify initiation of force.

If I got caught making up an “incident” to justify killing a police officer or prominent politician there is no doubt that I would be spending serious time in prison after I'd been held and abused [tortured?] prior to trial. My fraudulent incident would be seriously discussed in the media coverage and I would be lambasted for my lack of ethics repeatedly. If anyone stepped up to claim these attacks on my total lack of character were “political” they would be dismissed as a “nut case”.

I have repeatedly stated that IF law enforcement and politicians were considered under oath when making public statements about “dangerous drugs” they would easily be convicted of perjury. The same goes for Bush and Obama administration officials with regard to our current military engagements and to the Clinton and Bush administrations for recent military engagements. These are NOT “differences of opinion” or “political viewpoints”. Admittedly, some of these people are merely intellectually lazy people who repeat lies. However, once those lies have been exposed this argument goes out the window.

Policy decisions justified by lies, misdirection and outright fabrications are not legitimate. If I can't abduct and torture my police chief based on hearsay, why can the DEA imprison millions of marijuana or ecstasy users based on nonexistent standards and hearsay “evidence” - that could never stand up in a civil or criminal court. The only difference is that I can't – unlike the DEA – make new additions to schedules that would allow me to abduct and punish police chiefs based on hearsay. Honest people don't want that kind of power. And unlike local religious leaders, honest people don't believe that lying is a legitimate political tool.

It is no accident that any and all evil counterpart to a just deity is always the master of deception and lies. This is because all other evil originates from falsehood. Yet, it is astonishing how easy it is for religious leaders within every organized religion to accept widespread lies from those in power as legitimate. They should be reminded that God's evil counterpart is not a major drug abuser, abortionist, polluter, flaming queen, gun owner, hippie, redneck, prostitute, pimp,bull dike,illegal immigrant, or sweat shop owner. It is true that many of these people do lie. However, I have found no religious tract [writings of Chairman Mao and other communist manifestos excepted] that states that lying is OK – as long as it justifies actions punishing those who do evil [often based on lies or involving lies].

Politics involving lying are NOT legitimate. Support of policies based on lies is NOT a “difference of opinion”. Repetition of lies is still lying. Just because you believe the lie is true doesn't make it true. Just because a majority of people believe in a lie doesn't make that policy just; it just rewards those who lie and exploit this lie for political and financial gain. It should be noted that just because a lie is repeated often by “respectable” and “esteemed” people does not make it true. If that were true then politicians would just tell us anything that made us feel good about ourselves and those who repeated our prejudices and reinforced our insecurities about those we don't like. Truth is not something that can be voted into existence – despite the fervent claim of Benton County law enforcement, Philomath School Board, and Oregon's two US Senators.

I am an unabashed Liberal. I believe that we should have one standard of conduct/misconduct for all. Male sluts like Bill Clinton and JFK should be regarded the same as women like Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton. Homocidal mass killers like GWB, BHO, WJC and GWB – along with Chairman Mao, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Shah Pahlovi - should be treated the same as Charles Manson or Ted Kazinski. People who wield great political and economic power have greater responsibility in addition to their wealth and privilege. Unlike your average street thug or gangbanger who can only abuse or kill hundreds, these maniacs in power can lie and coerce policies that kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Why are we so eager to go after lightweights like Kazinski or McVeigh with righteous indignation – while defending those who do far more damage with the same righteous indignation. This is crazy! It's like Papa Joe once stated: one person's death is a tragedy while a million deaths are just a statistic. Yes, that's how double standards work in the real world. Now if only the mullahs, rabbis and ministers would wake up and smell the napalm.