What Is Wrong With Our Country: Double Standards

I started this current series to discuss what is wrong with our country and what we need to do to fix it. While I have discussed some of the topics that I will be including in this series, they have been included in other articles. In this series I will concentrate on a single topic. This will also mean that some of the articles may be slightly shorter than my readers have grown accustomed to, however they will still be written with the same attention to detail. This series will have no set number of articles and will continue to grow as I come across additional subjects.

Double standards exist when people are preferred or rejected on the basis of their ethnicity in situations in which ethnicity is not a relevant or justifiable factor for discrimination (as might be the case for a cultural performance or ethnic ceremony).

As long as our society pays homage and treats the wealthy, popular and powerful different then Average Joe and Jane, we will have a problem with double standards. This is not a problem that is unique to the US, it occurs worldwide. However, I think it is more prevalent her.

46 Examples Of Double Standards In Our Society That You’re Probably Guilty Of

Equality is humanity’s Holy Grail, the cornerstone of most value systems, but we have yet to reap all of its rewards. Sure, our society has tremendously evolved for the better during the last, say, 100 years, but a long journey is still ahead, and the vast array of double standards that still divide people to this day highlight this perfectly.

The double standard definition states that it is a rule or a principle applied to different people or groups. The most prominent case of double standard examples to this day come from gender equality. What’s usually okay for men, is not acceptable when done by women. Starting with beach attire and ending with lady bosses, society finds unnecessary ways to chime in about what’s wrong and what’s right.

Bored Panda has compiled a list of insightful illustrations that uncover the uncomfortable truth behind some everyday life situations, and it’s (mildly) disturbing how accurate they are. Judging by these images, it’s clear that sometimes terms like ‘gender equality’ are reduced to no more than a catchphrase. Scroll down to see the proof for yourself, and vote for your favorites.

#1 Double Standards

Double Standards

#2 Clothing Standards

Clothing Standards

#3 Body Image Standards

Body Image Standards

#4 Boys vs. Girls

Boys vs. Girls

#5 Double Standards

Double Standards

#6 Work Rules

Work Rules

#7 Fakes And Posers

Fakes And Posers

#8 Body Standards

Body Standards

#9 Double Standards For Parents

Double Standards For Parents

#10 Double Standards On Emotions

Double Standards On Emotions

#11 Body Positivity

Body Positivity

#12 Generalization

Generalization

#13  Leadership Strategies

Leadership Strategies

#14 Makeup vs. Natural

Makeup vs. Natural

#15 Gender Equality

Gender Equality

#16 Shameless Girls

Shameless Girls

#17 Double Standards

Double Standards

18 Gender Equality

Gender Equality

#19 Girls vs. Boys

Girls vs. Boys

#20 Double Standards On Young Girls

Double Standards On Young Girls

#21 Double Standards On Bodies

Double Standards On Bodies

#22 Shallow vs. Desperate

Shallow vs. Desperate

#23 Dressing Appropriately

Dressing Appropriately

#24 Girls vs. Boys

Girls vs. Boys

#25 Society’s Take On Men

Society's Take On Men

#26 Dad Bod vs. Mom Bod

Dad Bod vs. Mom Bod

#27 Sexual Harassment

Sexual Harassment

#28 Things You Can Only Do With Boys

Things You Can Only Do With Boys

#29 Double Standards

Double Standards

#30 Appearance Standards

Appearance Standards

#31 Comic Book Characters

Comic Book Characters

#32 Sexualizing Bodies

Sexualizing Bodies

#33 Equality

Equality

#34 Double Standards

Double Standards

#35 Problem Solving

Problem Solving

#36 Acceptable vs. Unacceptable

Acceptable vs. Unacceptable

#37 Double Standards

Double Standards

#38 Men And Women

Men And Women

#39 Standards For Dressing

#40 Double Standards In The Workplace

Double Standards In The Workplace

#41 The Smiley Face Double Standard

The Smiley Face Double Standard

#42 Double Standards In Relationships

Double Standards In Relationships

#43 Girl Power

Girl Power

#44 Double Standards

Double Standards

#45 Gender Equality

Gender Equality

#46 Double-standards-comic-illustrations

Double-standards-comic-illustrations

Double standards are unfair, create inequality for all

Double standards are far too commonplace in American society, as they only serve to limit particular groups or individuals. A double standard is any principle applied to two or more groups in unequal ways. One of the most common double standards is how men and women are judged in regard to sexual activity.

Education is another institution where the double standards between men and women are high. However, this principle exists anywhere where two groups of people are not held to the same criteria.

Sex is one of the most controversial topics in America, and it becomes the source of a double standard when others judge which gender is engaging in intercourse as well as when. As early as high school, males who engage in sexual activity are often viewed as more mature or desirable if they have multiple sexual partners.

On the other hand, females who are sexually active at this age have negative connotations associated with their behavior. What complicates this double standard even more is how its reverse works: In this case, non-sexually active males are considered less masculine than their sexually active peers, while females who refrain from sexual behavior are labeled as prudish.

Movies from all eras have capitalized on both types of these double standards heavily, and the movie “Easy A” and scenes from “The Breakfast Club” come to mind. They are detrimental to adolescents’ self-esteem and create pressure by peers to engage in sex prematurely, which can lead to higher rates of teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases.

Education is another frequent source of double standards between males and females. Males are generally encouraged by their families to seek higher education, while females in some parts of the country are still discouraged from it so they can start families earlier.

Though this double standard is still present, its popularity is waning as more women decide to pursue post-secondary education. Despite this development, double standards are still common in fields the students choose once in school. Careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) are still predominantly held by males, and there is still a fair amount of social stigma surrounding males who pursue degrees in the liberal or creative arts.

Double standards are so prevalent in American culture they are almost accepted as a normal part of society, despite their discriminatory nature. They exist not only between men and women, but also between social classes and racial and ethnic groups. They exist in the workplace, the home and in the courts. There is a double standard in almost every case where an unequal majority and minority exists.

This judgmental criticism is inhibiting the progress of America as a nation by limiting its citizens’ capabilities. However, erasing its effects is becoming a possibility. Programs in higher education have enabled many students to receive acceptance into colleges and degree programs where their demographic is under-represented.

Other double standards, like those relating to views on sex, appearance and racial integration, can only be removed through proper education to reverse the stigmas associated with many minority groups. Overall, they only limit individuals’ success. America needs to stop capitalizing on double standards’ existence and fueling their unfound legitimacy so the livelihood of all citizens can be improved.

Is There a Human Rights Double Standard? US Policy Toward Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan

Testimony by Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch Washington advocacy director<br><br>US House of Representatives Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify.

You’ve asked a question today that unfortunately has a very simple answer. Is there a human rights double standard? Yes, there is.

There has always been a tension in American foreign policy between the belief that promoting human rights is vital to advancing long-term American interests around the world, and the tendency to forget that belief when short-term interests get in the way.

You’ve asked a question today that unfortunately has a very simple answer. Is there a human rights double standard? Yes, there is.

There has always been a tension in American foreign policy between the belief that promoting human rights is vital to advancing long-term American interests around the world, and the tendency to forget that belief when short-term interests get in the way.

The Bush administration has been no exception to this rule. Ever since 9/11, President Bush has been arguing that promoting democratic freedoms, especially in the Muslim world, is key to fighting terrorism. The president appears to be sincere in this belief. I also think he is right. The only sure way to defeat radical, violent groups like al Qaeda is to promote the emergence of moderate political forces that will drown out the radicals’ message and give citizens peaceful avenues for expressing themselves. But such forces can only thrive in politically open societies – unlike the terrorists, they need freedom of speech and assembly, free elections and the rule of law to survive.

Given this conviction on the part of President Bush, you’d think that the more central a country was to the fight against terrorism, the more vigorously the administration would promote democracy there. But more often than not, the opposite has been true. This has been the case, to some extent, with Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. It’s also been true with a number of countries not on your list, such as Russia, Ethiopia, Jordan, and above all, today with Pakistan. The more the administration has needed another country in the short term to capture or kill individual terrorist suspects, the less eager it’s been to press that country to reform in ways that will dry up support for terrorism itself.

Now, let me be clear: I don’t expect pure and perfect consistency from our government on this or any other matter. In fact, I think that there is only one way to be perfectly consistent in life, and that is to be consistently unprincipled. Doing the wrong thing all the time is easy. Doing the right thing all the time is a lot harder. And, I’d rather have a foreign policy that’s inconsistently right than one that’s consistently wrong.

What’s more, I don’t believe that the United States should treat every human rights violator in the world in exactly the same way. The strategies the U.S. government chooses to promote human rights should indeed vary from country to country. They must take into account what will be most effective in each particular case, and respond to the needs and desires of those who are struggling for human rights and democracy on the ground.

That said, while American strategies may differ from country to country, America’s voice should not. There is no reason why the United States can’t speak honestly, clearly, and publicly about human rights to every government in the world, whether it is friend or foe. After all, engagement is not the same thing as endorsement – you can have a relationship with a country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia without feeling you have to defend its government’s policies whenever they’re criticized. Yet far too often, this is something the U.S. government forgets. Too often, American diplomats assume that to defend America’s choice of friends in the world, they have to defend everything those friends do – or at least be silent. Again – this should be seen as utterly unnecessary. It is also profoundly harmful to America’s overall human rights message in the world.

The United States is most effective in promoting liberty and human rights when people around the world believe it is rising above narrow self interest to defend universal ideals. If, instead, the U.S. government’s rhetoric about democracy is seen as a weapon it uses only against its enemies, people around the world become cynical about everything the United States does in the name of freedom. Under such circumstances, dictators in countries like Iran or Cuba can deflect U.S. criticism by arguing that it’s selective. Dissidents in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia doubt that the United States is really on their side; they suspect it is using its freedom agenda to mask other ends, and they’re less willing to be associated with U.S. democracy programs.

With that in mind, let me focus on the countries that are the subject of this hearing, and add one additional case that I believe deserves urgent attention.

With respect to Iran, I think the administration’s strong public focus on human rights is entirely appropriate. The Iranian government systematically suppresses freedom of expression. It harasses and imprisons its critics. It routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents. It persecutes religious minorities. By speaking loudly and clearly about human rights, the United States can connect with the many Iranians – particularly young people – who are themselves angry about the injustices committed by their government and eager to live in a more open society. Their activism offers the best hope for change inside Iran, which in turn would make possible the resolution of larger security issues between the United States and Iran.

America’s human rights message resonates with ordinary Iranians; what undermines it is the administration’s saber rattling – the military exercises in the Persian Gulf, and implicit threats of military force over the nuclear issue. Such threats unite the Iranian people with their leaders; they provide a pretext for greater political repression; indeed, they give the current Iranian government a longer lease on life than it might otherwise have if it couldn’t use tensions with America to distract its people from domestic problems.

Something else that doesn’t help: the administration’s constant public assertions that it is providing assistance to those who are struggling for democracy inside Iran. Just last week, the State Department spokesman put out a fact sheet claiming that current U.S. funding “supports those inside Iran who desire basic civil liberties.” In fact, no U.S. aid money is actually reaching dissidents inside the country – and they wouldn’t accept it even if they could. Most of the funding is going for broadcasting to Iran, and is obviously not being spent inside the country. But the Iranian government has used these announcements to accuse dissidents – falsely – of taking U.S. money and has persecuted them for it. These dissidents have begged the administration to stop making these claims; it is long past time for the administration to heed them.

With respect to Uzbekistan, the story is a bit more complicated. Uzbekistan became a close U.S. ally after 9/11, when it agreed to host U.S. forces engaged in the fight in Afghanistan in exchange for greater U.S. assistance. At first, the administration muted its criticism of this new ally’s human rights record. And that record was (and remains) abysmal. Uzbekistan is an absolute dictatorship in the Soviet mold. Its government brooks no dissent. It has imprisoned thousands of people for their political and religious beliefs. It locks up dissidents in psychiatric institutions. It practices torture systematically. Its ruthless policies have focused particularly on people who practice their Muslim faith independent of state-controlled institutions, driving believers underground, and potentially increasing support for violent radicalism.

America’s association with this government was thus profoundly counterproductive. The administration was using Uzbekistan as a staging ground for battles fought elsewhere, when it should have been using it as a proving ground for principles on which an effective battle against terrorism depends.

But that policy did evolve. In 2003, Congress tied aid to the Uzbek government to progress on human rights. The administration stepped up its criticism of Uzbekistan and, ultimately, aid was withheld. Then, in May of 2005, Uzbek security forces massacred hundreds of civilians who were protesting government policies in the city of Andijan, and launched a brutal crackdown on civil society throughout the country. The administration condemned the massacre, insisted on an independent international investigation, and, against furious Uzbek government objections, airlifted to safety hundreds of refugees who had fled Andijan for neighboring Kyrgyzstan. As a result of these U.S. actions, the Uzbek government expelled U.S. forces from their base in southern Uzbekistan. To its credit, the administration did not mute its concerns about human rights to keep this base.

Nevertheless, the administration did not follow up by imposing sanctions on the Uzbek government, as the European Union did in the wake of the Andijan killings. There was an internal debate on this issue within the administration. The Pentagon, which did not want to lose the limited overflight and drive-through rights the U.S. military retained in Uzbekistan, objected to any measures that might further alienate the Uzbek leadership. The result has been a policy stalemate and diminished focus on Uzbekistan – in effect, the United States withdrew its attention when it withdrew its troops. Having done the right thing immediately after the Andijan events, the administration has done nothing since. Its strategy appears to amount to little more than waiting for Uzbekistan’s ruler, Islam Karimov, to pass from the scene. A much more proactive policy is needed, one that combines support for what is left of Uzbek civil society, increasing the flow of information into the country, and targeted sanctions against the leadership. Legislation to impose sanctions has been introduced in the Senate by Senators McCain and Biden; I hope similar legislation will be considered and approved by the House.

A more obvious double standard exists in U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia. For years, of course, the U.S. government simply exempted Saudi Arabia from its global democracy promotion efforts. That changed very slightly after 9/11, and, to be fair, quiet U.S. pressure has contributed to the very modest beginnings of an internal reform process in the Saudi Kingdom. But the key word here is quiet. The administration has been far more reluctant to speak publicly about Saudi Arabia’s problems than it has been about any other close ally in the Arab world, including Egypt.

In 2005, the United States initiated a Strategic Dialogue with Saudi Arabia, which includes working groups on a number of issues, but none formally designated to deal with human rights. State Department officials have traveled to Saudi Arabia to raise human rights issues, but these discussions are held very much behind the scenes and it is unclear how much progress, if any, has been made. The State Department’s Office of Religious Freedom has worked hard on Saudi cases, and helped persuade Saudi Arabia to make a commitment to respect the right of private worship. But it has not demanded effective enforcement of this commitment and has been silent about recent breaches, including the Saudi government’s January deportation of South Asian Ahmadi Muslims solely because of their faith.

For the past three years, the State Department has condemned Saudi Arabia for its policies on human trafficking, placing it in the category of most serious violators, or Tier 3 under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. But the administration has consistently waived sanctions against Saudi Arabia that are supposed to be triggered by that designation, arguing that a full waiver needs to be given to allow military sales to Saudi Arabia “to advance the goals of the Global War on Terror and U.S. commercial interests.”

There is a concern that speaking too loudly about issues like women’s rights and religious freedom in Saudi Arabia could backfire, causing these issues to be perceived as exclusively Western attacks against a pristine Islamic culture. Care indeed needs to be taken in choosing how to speak to Saudis about human rights. But silence is not a wise alternative. Silence creates the perception not just among Saudis but among a much wider audience in the Middle East that the United States doesn’t really care about human rights in the region. After all, people understandably reason, if the United States really cared, it would be criticizing its allies as well as the Syrians and Iranians. The result is a loss of credibility, and effectiveness, for all U.S. efforts to promote reform in the region.

It is certainly possible for the United States to speak out in ways that resonate with the growing number of Saudi citizens who themselves are concerned about such issues as the fair application of justice in Saudi courts, the highhanded policies of the religious police, the protected privileges of the elite, and the ability of women to manage their affairs. Indeed, by taking a principled and consistent stand on these issues in the right tone, the United States would be aligning itself with the overwhelming majority of Saudis who believe there are problems in their society that need to be publicly discussed and fixed. The administration should not keep buying the Saudi leadership’s line that they cannot move faster than their people on reform. The Saudi government has, in fact, been moving slower than its people. And the United States would lose nothing by saying so.

Mr. Chairman, let me close by adding one additional country to the mix here, and that is Pakistan. I believe that Pakistan represents the most egregious, and harmful, example of a human rights double standard in American foreign policy today. Pakistan appears to have little place in President Bush’s “freedom agenda.” On the contrary, President Bush has repeatedly come to the defense of his friend President Musharraf against anyone who criticizes his continued dictatorial rule over Pakistan.

In recent weeks, a growing movement of Pakistanis, led by the country’s lawyers, has been peacefully demanding a return to democratic government in the country. Last week, President Bush responded by praising Pakistani “democracy” and referring to the growing protests against General Musharraf as “posturing.”

These statements appear to align the United States behind one man against virtually every decent segment of Pakistani society – against the very people in that country who are most likely to be America’s friends and to support a moderate, modern course for Pakistan. This kind of approach will reinforce all of General Musharraf’s bad tendencies – not just his authoritarian crackdown, but his policy of marginalizing moderate, secular forces in the country, his political reliance on Islamists, and his consequent refusal to prevent Taliban elements from killing American troops, Afghan civilians, and opponents in Pakistan’s tribal areas. It is a classic case of muting human rights concerns to protect a security relationship. But it is in fact just as contrary to U.S. security interests as it is to America’s commitment to democracy. And it is killing America’s image with the next generation of, hopefully, democratic Pakistani leaders.

I raise this, Mr. Chairman, because it is truly an urgent example of the problem you are focusing on today, and one that requires immediate attention. We desperately need, in the coming days, clear, public statements from both the administration and the Congress urging full respect for the rule of law and judicial independence in Pakistan, the release of political detainees, media freedom, and a swift return to civilian, democratic rule. This shouldn’t be about whether the United States supports or opposes a particular leader – but it needs to be, clearly and unequivocally, about U.S. support for the institutions of democracy and law.

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering any questions the committee may have.

Too Many Foreign Policy Double Standards Hurt U.S. Credibility

U.S. leaders need to be candid with the American people and acknowledge that their decisions are based on cold calculations of national interest, not ethical considerations.

merican leaders like to portray the United States as an exemplar of ethical conduct in the international system. The reality is far different, and it has been for decades. Throughout the Cold War, the United States embraced extremely repressive rulers, including the Shah of Iran, Nicaragua’s Somoza family, Taiwan’s Chiang Kai‐​shek, and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, all the while portraying them as noble members of the “Free World.” Such blatant hypocrisy and double standards continue today regarding both Washington’s own dubious behavior and the U.S. attitude toward the behavior of favored allies and friends.

The gap between professed values and actual policy is especially evident in the Middle East. U.S. officials routinely excoriate Syria and Iran, not only for their external behavior, but for manifestations of domestic abuse and repression. Some of those criticisms are valid. Both Bashar al-Assad’s regime and Iran’s clerical government are guilty of serious international misconduct and human‐​rights violations. But the credibility of Washington’s expressions of outrage is vitiated when those same officials remain silent, or even excuse, equally serious—and in some cases, more egregious—abuses that the United States and its allies commit.

Following the Syrian regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons in early April, President Trump painted Assad as an exceptionally vile enemy. He immediately issued a tweet describing the Syrian leader as “an animal” who gassed his own people. In his subsequent address to the American people announcing punitive air and missile strikes, Trump charged that the incident confirmed “a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime. The evil and despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead.” The president also blasted Russia and Iran for their longstanding sponsorship of Assad. “To Iran and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children?” 

TAC’s Daniel Larison provided an apt response to that question. “Trump should know the answer, since he just hosted one of the chief architects of the war on Yemen that the U.S. has backed to the hilt for the last three years. Britain welcomed the Saudi crown prince earlier on, and France just hosted him in the last few days. All three have been arming and supporting the Saudis and their allies in Yemen no matter how many atrocities they commit.”

Indeed, the United States has been an outright accomplice in those atrocities, which among other tragic effects, has led to a cholera epidemic in Yemen. The U.S. military refuels Saudi coalition warplanes and provides intelligence to assist them in their attacks on Yemen—attacks that have exhibited total indifference about civilian casualties. A recent revelation implicates Washington in even more atrocious conduct. Evidence has emerged that Saudi forces have employed white phosphorous munitions, and that the United States supplied those foul weapons that inflict horrible burns on their victims. For U.S. leaders to criticize Syria for using chemical weapons in light of such behavior may reach a new level of hypocrisy.

U.S. leaders need to be candid with the American people and acknowledge that their decisions are based on cold calculations of national interest, not ethical considerations.

Washington’s double standard also is evident regarding the international conduct of another U.S. ally: Turkey. U.S. officials reacted with a vitriolic denunciation of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, but the reaction was—and remains—very different regarding Ankara’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the occupation of that country’s northern territory. Washington’s criticism was tepid even at the beginning, and it has become more so with the passage of time. Indeed, there is greater U.S. pressure on the government of Cyprus to accept a peace settlement that would recognize the legitimacy of the puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus that Ankara established (and has populated with settlers from the Turkish mainland) and countenance the continued presence of Turkish troops. Although the United States initially imposed mild sanctions on Turkey for invading and occupying its neighbor, they were soon lifted. Sanctions imposed against Russia are stronger, and there is little prospect that they will be lifted, or even eased, in the foreseeable future.

Washington’s criticism of Turkey’s repeated military incursions into northern Iraq and northern Syria likewise have been barely audible. That has been the case even though the targets in Syria are Kurdish forces that aided the United States and its allies in their war against ISIS.

The flagrant U.S. double standard also is apparent in the disparate assessments of the domestic conduct of Iran and such U.S. allies as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley verbally eviscerates Tehran at every opportunity for repressing its population. When anti‐​government demonstrations erupted in several Iranian cities earlier this year, Haley was quick to embrace their cause. “The Iranian regime’s contempt for the rights of its people has been widely documented for many years,” she stated during a Security Council session. Haley added that the United States stood “unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves, prosperity for their families, and dignity for their nation.”

Iran certainly does not resemble a Western‐​style democracy, but its political system is vastly more open than either Egypt’s or Saudi Arabia’s. Although the clerical Guardian Council excludes any candidate for office that it deems unacceptable, competing elections take place between individuals with often sharply contrasting views. President Hassan Rouhani won a new electoral mandate over a decidedly more hardline opponent in the May 2017 presidential election. Compared to some U.S. allies in the Middle East, Iran resembles a Jeffersonian democracy.

The Saudi royal family does not tolerate even a hint of domestic opposition. People have been imprisoned or beheaded merely for daring to criticize the regime. Saudi Arabia’s overall human‐​rights record is easily one of the worst in the world, as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented. It is a measure of just how stifling the system is that the government finally allowing women to drive is considered a radical reform. A similar suffocating miasma of repressionexists in Egypt, where President Abdel Fattah el‐​Sisi has imprisoned thousands of political opponents, executed hundreds, and wins rigged elections by absurd margins reminiscent of those in Soviet satellite countries during the Cold War.

Yet, President Trump and other U.S. officials express little criticism of those brutal, autocratic allies. Trump’s demeanor during his state visit to Riyadh last year bordered on fawning. Washington approves multi‐​billion‐​dollar arms deals for both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, despite their legendary human‐​rights abuses. As noted, the United States even continues to assist Saudi Arabia in its atrocity‐​ridden military intervention in Yemen.

There may be plausible geo‐​strategic reasons for persisting in such double standards. Iran, for example, has been openly hostile to the United States and its policy objectives since the fall of the Shah. It is not illogical for Washington to be intent on countering the influence of Tehran and its Syrian ally, even if that requires making common cause with other repressive regimes in the region. But U.S. leaders need to be candid with the American people and acknowledge that their decisions are based on cold calculations of national interest, not ethical considerations. They should at least spare us their pontificating and the pretense that they care about the rights or welfare of Middle Eastern populations. Washington’s policies indicate otherwise.

11 double standards that still exist for women in the US

  1. Women are still not paid the same wages as men for doing the same jobs in the US.
  2. Assertive women are often considered “bossy.”
  3. Research shows that women who have had more sexual partners are stigmatized, but men are rewarded.
  4. Women are still expected to change their last name when they get married.
  5. Cleavage is prevalent in advertisements and media, but women breastfeeding their children in public are still told to cover up.
  6. “Dad bods” are considered attractive, but women are expected to lose baby weight after giving birth.
  7. Men are disproportionately praised for taking care of their children, whereas women are expected to be caregivers.
  8. Childcare responsibilities still widely fall on women — nearly 2.5 million women left the workforce after childcare centers and schools closed due to the pandemic.
  9. Any parenting decision a woman makes is subject to “mom shaming.”
  10. Women pay more for the same everyday items because of the “pink tax.”
  11. Women may be more likely to die of a heart attack if they have a male doctor.

People Are Sharing Things That Are Considered Trashy If You’re Poor But Classy If You’re Rich, And There’s A Double Standard

Double standards exist throughout our society. However, when people think of double standards, they often consider the differences between men and women, but one TikTok user is challenging the internet to consider the differences in how we perceive rich and poor people doing the same actions.

1. “Tiny houses. Essentially, they’re trailers with fancy names. People look down on living in a trailer, but people live in tiny houses and consider it to be minimalistic.”

2. “Immigration. If you have money, you have a privilege of having a good life when you’re an immigrant. You have the privilege of having a good apartment, good living, getting your documents easier — you just do. If you don’t have money, you’re basically fighting for a good life and people look down on you.”

osselivanova

3. “Eating cheese and crackers as a meal.”

4. “Not having a job. If you’re poor and don’t have a job, or have to rely on others, you’re considered trashy. But if you’re rich and don’t have a job and you rely on your spouse, you’re considered lucky or fortunate.”

blondie_boo82

5. “Homelessness. Rich white kids have gentrified living in vans and cars. It’s the ‘cool, new thing.'”

6. “Eating ramen. If you’re poor, it’s the last thing you can find in your cupboard the day before pay day. If you’re rich, you just dropped $30 at a restaurant on one bowl of noodles.”

weird_el

7. “Thrifting. If you’re wealthy and you thrift, you are ‘on trend,’ you are ‘environmentally conscious.’ But if you’re poor, that’s what you ‘have to do.'”

8. “Having multiple jobs. If you have to work three jobs just to feed your family, somehow you’re trashy.” [Otherwise, you’re business-savvy with multiple streams of income.]

9. “Not taking care of your kids. When [the less fortunate] do it, it’s neglect. When rich people do it, it’s called having a nanny.”

10. “Fake teeth.”

dysalexiaa_

11. “Going to the casino. When I used to live in Las Vegas, all the tourists would come. You know, high rollers. People would spend tons of money. The rich would go to the table games and spend an exorbitant amount of money, just like on one hand. But when I lived in Illinois, the casinos are usually located in poorer towns, and the people that are in there…[are seen as being] addicted to gambling.”

12. “Doing drugs. When rich people do drugs, it’s an ‘aesthetic,’ but when poor people do drugs, it’s them ‘throwing away their life.'”

cynthia.666

13. “Intermittent fasting.”

blue_haired_lesbian

14. “If you camp and you’re rich, you ‘love exploring’ and you’re ‘sooo adventurous.’ But if you sleep outside and you’re poor, they call you homeless.”

15. “I’m going to say: not paying your fair share in taxes.”

aguynamedjohn

16. “Being a daily drinker. If you’re poor and you’re a daily drinker, you’re ‘just an alcoholic.’ But if you’re rich and a daily drinker, you’ve ‘got a nice bourbon collection.'”

thebourbonbard

17. “Naming your kids weird names. Like, think back to school with all the weird names [and how it was perceived]…but then you’ve got Elon Musk naming his kid X Æ A-Xii.”

The double-standard of making the poor prove they’re worthy of government benefits

Poverty looks pretty great if you’re not living in it. The government gives you free money to spend on steak and lobster, on tattoos and spa days, on — why not? — cruise vacations and psychic visits.

Enough serious-minded people seem to think this is what the poor actually buy with their meager aid that we’ve now seen a raft of bills and proposed state laws to nudge them away from so much excess. Missouri wants to curtail what the poor eat with their food stamps (evidence of the problem from one state legislator: “I have seen people purchasing filet mignons”). Kansas wants to block welfare recipients from spending government money at strip clubs (in legalese: any “sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment”).

[Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood]

[Kansas wants to stop people on welfare from spending money on cruises]

Then there are the states that want to drug-test welfare recipients — the implication being that we worry the poor will convert their benefits directly into drugs.

Sometimes these laws are cast as protection for the poor, ensuring that aid is steered in ways that will help them the most. Other times they’re framed as protection for the taxpayer, who shouldn’t be asked to help people who will squander the money on vices anyway.

But the logic behind the proposals is problematic in at least three, really big ways.

The first is economic: There’s virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money this way. The idea that they do defies Maslow’s hierarchy — the notion that we all need shelter and food before we go in search of foot massages. In fact, the poor are much more savvy about how they spend their money because they have less of it (quick quiz: do you know exactly how much you last spent on a gallon of milk? or a bag of diapers?). By definition, a much higher share of their income — often more than half of it — is eaten up by basic housing costs than is true for the better-off, leaving them less money for luxuries anyway. And contrary to the logic of drug-testing laws, the poor are no more likely to use drugs than the population at large.

The second issue with these laws is a moral one: We rarely make similar demands of other recipients of government aid. We don’t drug-test farmers who receive agriculture subsidies (lest they think about plowing while high!). We don’t require Pell Grant recipients to prove that they’re pursuing a degree that will get them a real job one day (sorry, no poetry!). We don’t require wealthy families who cash in on the home mortgage interest deduction to prove that they don’t use their homes as brothels (because surely someone out there does this). The strings that we attach to government aid are attached uniquely for the poor.

That leads us to the third problem, which is a political one. Many, many Americans who do receive these other kinds of government benefits — farm subsidies, student loans, mortgage tax breaks — don’t recognize that, like the poor, they get something from government, too. That’s because government gives money directly to poor people, but it gives benefits to the rest of us in ways that allow us to tell ourselves that we get nothing from government at all.

Political scientist Suzanne Mettler has called this effect the “submerged state.” Food stamps and welfare checks are incredibly visible government benefits. The mortgage interest deduction, Medicare benefits and tuition tax breaks are not — they’re submerged. They come to us in round-about ways, through smaller tax bills (or larger refunds), through payments we don’t have to make to doctors (thanks to Medicare), or in tuition we don’t have to pay to universities (because the G.I. Bill does that for us).

Mettler’s research has shown that a remarkable number of people who don’t think they get anything from government in fact benefit from one of these programs. This explains why we get election-season soundbites from confused voters who want policymakers to “keep your government hands off my Medicare!” This is also what enables politicians to gin up indignation among small-government supporters who don’t realize they rely on government themselves.

Mettler raises a lot of concerns about what the submerged state means for how we understand the role of government. But one result of this reality is that we have even less tolerance for programs that help the poor: We begrudge them their housing vouchers, for instance, even though government spends about four times as much subsidizing housing for upper-income homeowners.

That’s a long-winded way of saying that these proposed laws — which insist that government beneficiaries prove themselves worthy, that they spend government money how the government wants them to, that they waive their privacy and personal freedom to get it — are also simply a reflection of a basic double-standard.

The Democratic party’s double standards on wealth inequality

Now is the time to redress inequality — but watered-down proposals will benefit the rich, not ‘middle-class’ voters

It is better, they say, to have half a loaf than none at all. That is the case for this week’s tax proposals from congressional Democrats, which have watered down Joe Biden’s campaign plan. But the metaphor underplays the good fortune of America’s billionaires, who, at worst, would have to yield a few crumbs. For a moment it looked like the Democratic party would confront US inequality head-on. It has already passed. Barring a dramatic shift in partisan arithmetic, the super-rich seem to have bought themselves several more years’ reprieve.

It cannot all be put down to Democratic “moderates”, such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, whose 50th Senate vote gives him great leverage over the contents of Biden’s $3.5tn bill. Manchin will surely shrink its size. He will also ensure that Biden’s proposal to lift the US corporate tax rate from 21 per cent to 28 per cent falls far short. Nor were Biden’s plans to almost double the US capital gains tax to the top 39.5 per cent bracket likely to get past the party’s centrists. These are the realities of having a wafer-thin majority. The limits to a president’s power are never so exposed as when he wants money from Congress.

But the loudest trumpet in this retreat belongs to mainstream party liberals from Democratic strongholds such as New York and California. They are hoping to repeal the $10,000 annual cap on the state and local tax deduction (Salt), which enables residents of high tax states to offset what they pay locally against their federal income taxes. Almost all the beneficiaries of scrapping the cap would be rich. The cost to the taxpayer would amount to $91bn a year, which would more than wipe out the income tax increases the wealthy would have to pay under the Democratic plan. The wealthiest 0.1 per cent would get an average $145,000 tax cut. For the middle 60 per cent of households, it would be $27 a year.

This is not just bad economics — it is hard to find a single economist on the left or right who thinks it would be a good idea. It is also terrible politics. In 2017 Democrats found a popular echo in attacking the inequities of Donald Trump’s $1.5tn tax cut. But the repeal of the Salt tax cap would be far more regressive than Trump’s tax cut. Passing it would give Republicans an easy opportunity to paint Democrats as hypocrites who claim to be pro-poor while serving their rich donor base. Worse, such a critique would not be that far wrong. How often are Republican attack lines based on facts nowadays?

It does not help that Democrats are presenting their Salt plans as “relief for the middle classes” — and now “pandemic relief”. It was Republicans who substituted “tax relief” for “tax cut” to make it sound better. Democrats are picking it up verbatim. “When Democrats say this is relief for the middle classes, what exactly is their definition of ‘middle’?” asks Richard Reeves, a Brookings fellow and scholar of US meritocracy. “Do words have no meaning any more?” It was Trump who put the $10,000 cap on Salt, doubtless for partisan reasons — to punish rich liberals in Democratic states. He was already shifting his domicile to Florida. Many rich New Yorkers followed suit in the pandemic. Scrapping that cap would not make Democrats anti-Trump. It would just make them pro-rich.

The bill as a whole would still deliver a big improvement to America’s safety net. The pandemic child tax credit would become permanent. Early childhood learning would be universal, bringing the US into line with the rest of the developed world. And if Manchin does not purge its green elements, the bill would mark a big step towards Biden’s goals of reducing America’s net carbon emissions.

But it is also important to stress what it would not do. By raising the tax on capital gains only slightly and opting not to tax asset appreciation on inheritance, it would leave America’s plutocratic reality in place. The ratio of billionaires’ wealth has risen by a third to 19 per cent of gross domestic product since the start of the pandemic. Now is the ripest opportunity in a long time to redress America’s late Rome-style inequality. The fact that Democrats are so timid speaks volumes. 

7 times public officials had double standards on COVID-19

In the field of behavioral ethics, it’s called ‘ethical fading,’ and describes how people deceive themselves to hide the wrongness of their choices

Dr. Deborah Birx is the latest public official to make headlines for ignoring her own coronavirus safety advice, but she isn’t the first.

The Associated Press reported Monday that Birx, coordinator of the White House’s coronavirus response, traveled out of state with extended family members, despite encouraging Americans to keep celebrations within their “immediate household.”

For those of us struggling to stay motivated to continue social distancing and wearing masks, cases where public officials ignore the very rules they are imposing on others can feel like more than enough reason to give up, or at least cry, “hypocrisy!”

But Dana Radcliffe, who teaches ethics at Cornell’s SC Johnson College of Business and Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs, reminds us that American history is filled with instances of politicians preaching ideals in conflict with their behavior — from Thomas Jefferson who declared “all men are created equal” while owning slaves, to Lyndon Johnson who pledged not to escalate military involvement in Vietnam even though he planned to do so.

In the field of behavioral ethics, this phenomenon is called “ethical fading,” said Radcliffe. The term describes the way people deceive themselves to hide the wrongness of their choices.

“I can well imagine a public official telling himself, after urging others not to gather with family for the holidays, that, being very knowledgeable of the issue, he can adequately protect himself and his loved ones from the risks he asks other citizens to avoid,” said Radcliffe.

Still, officials should be held to a higher standard, he said, especially when public health is on the line.

“People who have considerable power or ability to influence others have a greater obligation to make sure that their actions match their words — because their words and actions can affect the behavior and welfare of others,” said Radcliffe. He added that appointed and elected officials who have openly disregarded scientific findings and recommended guidelines based on their personal and political beliefs could be doing even more harm and getting in the way of resolving the problem.

Here are seven examples, among many, of public officials who drew scrutiny for flouting their own coronavirus recommendations.

1. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

Pelosi, a Democrat, came under fire after she visited a San Francisco hair salon in August. At the time, public health restrictions forbade hair salons from operating. According to CNN, Pelosi’s staff said the speaker made an appointment with a private stylist who misinformed her they could serve one customer inside the salon at a time. It turned out that wasn’t true. The owner of the salon, Erica Kious said it was “a slap in the face” that Pelosi went in to get her hair done while regular people weren’t able to do so, and while hairstylists and salon owners couldn’t work, Fox News reported.

2. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, senior U.S. senator from California

The longtime Democrat had made statements to Congress saying that masks are important and should be mandatory because they reduce the transmission of COVID-19. After calling on the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Transit Administration to make masks mandatory for airlines and public transit, Feinstein was spotted in September at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, walking through a private terminal without a face covering. Later, a clip that showed the 87-year-old senator outside a Senate hearing without a mask, talking closely with two men, went viral on social media, according to ABC.

3. Lori Lightfoot, mayor of Chicago

Lightfoot defended her decision to join a crowd of people celebrating Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s election victory, despite announcing a stay-at-home advisory due to surging coronavirus cases days after the celebration, the Chicago Tribune reported. Unmasked, she spoke to the tightly packed crowd with a bullhorn and posted the video on social media.

Lightfoot told MSNBC that everyone in the crowd was wearing masks and she thought the gathering was justified, saying, “Yes, there are times when we actually do need to have … relief and come together, and I felt like that was one of those times. That crowd was gathered whether I was there or not.”

4. Muriel Bowser, mayor of Washington, D.C.

Like Lightfoot, Bowser also figured that Biden’s presumptive win was good cause to circumvent coronavirus guidelines she put in place. Bowser and members of her staff traveled from D.C. to Delaware for a victory celebration at the beginning of November, according to the Washington Post.

At the time, a mayoral order on interstate travel required anyone who visited certain states including Delaware to quarantine for two weeks upon returning home, except those whose travel was for essential purposes. The mayor said that the trip “absolutely” qualified as “essential travel” because she was conducting government business.

However, a new rule that went into effect after her trip eliminated the two-week quarantine requirement and instead ordered people to be tested for coronavirus before returning to the District from high-risk states.

5. Gavin Newsom, governor of California

Newsom, a Democrat, was criticized for attending a Napa Valley dinner party with guests from multiple different households in November, after encouraging Californians not to gather with family over Thanksgiving, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The dinner was reportedly a birthday party for a political adviser at a Michelin-starred French restaurant.

Unlike some other politicians caught in the act, the governor formally apologized for disregarding his own guidelines. That same day, he reversed plans for reopening many parts of the state, according to The Los Angeles Times. He said, “I need to preach and practice, not just preach and not practice.”

6. Michael Hancock, mayor of Denver, Colorado

Hancock also had to apologize to constituents for his negligence in November. The mayor posted a message on social media and also sent a message to city staff encouraging everyone to avoid traveling for the holidays. Then, he proceeded to fly to Mississippi to spend Thanksgiving with his wife and daughter, the Denver Post reported.

“I recognize that my decision has disappointed many who believe it would have been better to spend Thanksgiving alone,” he said. “I made my decision as a husband and father, and for those who are angry and disappointed, I humbly ask you to forgive decisions that are borne of my heart and not my head.”

7. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House’s coronavirus response

According to The Associated Press, Birx traveled with three generations of her family from two households to a vacation property on Fenwick Island in Delaware the day after Thanksgiving. The group included Birx, her husband, a daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren, even though Birx had previously urged Americans to “be vigilant” and limit celebrations to “your immediate household.”

Birx defended the trip by saying the purpose was to prepare the property for a potential sale and not to celebrate the holiday, Fox News reported.

“As some members of my immediate family could be at risk for COVID-19, I am extremely vigilant in taking all precautions to protect them. I self-isolate, I wear a mask, and I get tested when I interact with them. My family and I follow and practice CDC guidelines, and I encourage all Americans, especially those in situations similar to mine, to do the same,” Birx told Fox News.

Double Standards: Democrats vs. Republicans

Political satirists could not have created two more perfect examples of the double standard for Democrats and Republicans than Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Michael Grimm of New York.  They’re both going to be destroyed for exactly the same offenses that have been routinely waved off as meaningless distractions and “old news” for Democrats.  Grimm’s already toast, and Scalise’s bread is being buttered as we speak.

Political satirists could not have created two more perfect examples of the double standard for Democrats and Republicans than Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Michael Grimm of New York.  They’re both going to be destroyed for exactly the same offenses that have been routinely waved off as meaningless distractions and “old news” for Democrats.  Grimm’s already toast, and Scalise’s bread is being buttered as we speak.

Scalise will take a bit longer to drop into the political toaster because he’s falling from a greater height – he currently holds the position of House Majority Whip.  Remember how Democrats sneered at Obama scandals like Benghazi and the IRS because, as National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said with respect to the former, “Dude, that was like, two years ago?”  Remember how anyone who brought up Obama’s relationships to actual terrorists, like his mentor Bill Ayers, or fiery racist hatemonger Jeremiah Wright was castigated for “living in the past” and smearing Obama’s character through guilt by association?  Well, forget all about those standards, because somebody discovered that Rep. Scalise spoke at an event linked to white supremacist David Duke twelve years ago, and it’s the freshest, hottest news in the land.  It might as well have happened yesterday.  Old news hasn’t been this fresh since the liberal media flipped out over a dubious story that had Mitt Romney giving another another kid a haircut five decades ago.

Hey, remember how the Democrats honored an actual Klan member, Robert Byrd, as an elder statesman of their party throughout his twilight years… even though he kept belching up racially insensitive comments, just about every time someone pointed a microphone at him?  Well, forget that, too.  You have to be able to forget a lot of stuff quickly and thoroughly to be a Democrat.

Well, wait a second, isn’t an active racist hatemonger, Al Sharpton, currently a top White House adviser and powerful media personality?  Sharpton has actually gotten people killed.  He’s currently presiding over a violent nationwide protest movement that counts some very shady characters among its organizers and sponsors.  Shouldn’t white-hot links to race hustlers and honest-to-gosh Communists be as toxic as getting mixed up in a single event that involved David Duke over a decade ago?  It’s kind of tough to follow standard Democrat Party protocols and simply forget about Sharpton and the Ferguson Mob, since they’re all over the news every day at the moment.  No worries, because the Left and its media cohort have double standards they can activate with lightning speed, transforming a particular data point into either a front-page story or irrelevant “old news” based solely and entirely on party polarity.

If it hasn’t happened already, Sharpton will be invited onto a major network show to pontificate about the urgent need for Scaliese to resign, and the double standard will blast right through your retinas and smash part of your brain up against the back of your skull.  If you haven’t already disconnected those portions of your brain to embrace liberalism, it’s going to hurt.  Maybe Barack Obama can hold a joint press conference with Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers to call for Scaliese to step down, and we can all get blitzed on double-standard cognitive dissonance instead of drinking on New Year’s Eve.  It’ll be cheaper than buying booze.  Well, no, actually paying for those bottles of Old Double Standard has been fantastically expensive, but those bills have already come due, so we might as well enjoy the buzz.

What a fascinating line of reasoning!  Scaliese can’t possibly claim that he doesn’t know who David Duke is, because we’ve got him on the record from 15 years ago referring to the villain by name.  Therefore, Scaliese can’t be telling the truth when he claims he wasn’t aware of Duke’s involvement in a particular event!  Man, it’s a good thing Democrats are protected by that Double Standard, because at least half of them would be hounded out of Washington tomorrow if their ties to unsavory groups and individuals were evaluated this way.

Rep. Scaliese’s ability to survive this 12-year-old scandal and keep his hands on the handle of that Majority Whip may depend on his ability to persuade the media (and his party leadership, which lives in terror of it) that he didn’t know what he was getting into when he addressed that EURO event.  Character witnesses have come forth to testify that, among other things, Scaliese is a devout Catholic, and would not have knowingly associated with anti-Catholic organizations.

A Democrat would also be able to hunker down and wait for the news cycle to roll on, but that option won’t be available to Scaliese – the media will keep this a top story, across dozens of broadcasts and publications, until he bleeds.  Remember that the next time some media hack claims his organization “covered” a Democrat scandal by running a four-paragraph story on page A23 of a single paper, possibly without mentioning the party affiliation of the controversial politician at all.  Try reviewing today’s coverage of Scaliese and count how many paragraphs you have to read before the word “Republican” appears, if it’s not already in the headline.  “Guess That Party” is a game you only have to play when a Democrat gets in trouble.  (Leon H. Wolf has another fun game running over at RedState today, in which players are invited to guess whether a series of racist quotes came from David Duke or Democrat Party favorite Louis Farrakhan.)

Fortunately for Democrats, the Double Standard even makes them immune to tax law.  That’s how the party of tax cheat Charlie Rangel – the party that currently celebrates tax cheat Al Sharpton as one of the most powerful men in America – sought and claimed the scalp of Rep. Michael Grimm of New York.  When Rangel was censured for his offenses, the Democrat Party rose in unison to give him a standing ovation, extending a giant middle finger into the faces of every single honest taxpaying American.  Grimm, on the other hand, is resigning from Congress just a week after admitting to tax evasion and a month after winning re-election, as Fox News reports:

He can stroll into the White House for countless visits without having to worry about the bloated, politicized Internal Revenue Service nabbing him at the door.

Under the general rubric of “two wrongs don’t make a right,” it is fair to say that Democrats skating on similar political and legal offenses doesn’t justify Republicans doing it.  One of the biggest problems facing this country is the evolution of a Ruling Class aristocracy that sets itself above the punishing laws imposed on the rest of us; not all of those aristocrats are Democrats.  The future of the Republican Party lies in standing up for equal treatment, fairness, respect for taxpayers, and the rule of law, as they declare war on cronyism and corruption.  That’s not a crusade anyone will take seriously if the GOP tolerates scofflaws in its ranks, or if it indulges playing political games with unsavory groups to assemble political support.

But the Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right rule also says we must clearly point out the Double Standard and demolish it.  If racism and hatemongering are wrong, then they are wrong, no matter what color the racist is, or how much political influence he sells to the Democrat Party.  If paying your taxes is a “patriotic duty,” as liberals love to remind us to deflect political heat on Tax Day, then Democrat tax cheats are traitors.  Double Standards are a form of corruption.  Let us be done with them.

Update: You know what else instantly becomes “old news” barely worth reporting if you have the right Party credentials?  The sexual abuse of children.  No need for any prominent Democrat to worry about his ties to top Party donor and Obama pal Terry Bean, personally hailed as a “great friend and supporter” by Barack Obama himself, after Bean was indicted on felony abuse charges, with an accomplice.  The media would never dream of asking if Democrat power players were aware of Bean’s nefarious activities, any more than they asked if the unhealthy proclivities of San Diego mayor Bob “Filthy” Filner were indulged during his long congressional career, or if the Democrat Party had a problem after the FBI took down several prominent Democrats simultaneously last year.

The jeering hypocrisy and double standards of the ruling class.

Do you remember when President Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017? Leftist Democrats rioted in Washington that day. That riot was arguably worse, more violent and more destructive, than what happened in D.C. yesterday. The liberal rioters destroyed stores, set vehicles on fire and battled with the police. Six police officers were wounded. I don’t recall a single Democratic office-holder denouncing the Democrats’ Inauguration Day riot, and the Associated Press came perilously close to praising the rioters.

Over the ensuing four years, Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioted countless times, bringing devastation to cities like Portland, Seattle, Kenosha and Minneapolis. Did any Democrats denounce these riots? Not that I remember. Many Democrats endorsed them, or seemed to do so.

And let’s not forget James Hodgkinson, even though every reporter in America apparently has. Hodgkinson was the Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer who tried to assassinate the entire House Republican baseball team and very nearly succeeded, inflicting grievous and permanent injuries on Congressman Steve Scalise. Hodgkinson was not the usual 20-something loner, he was a middle-aged union official who was not insane, but just full of hate. His Facebook page was festooned with over-the-top attacks on Republicans, taken directly from speeches by Bernie Sanders and every other prominent Democrat.

Friend of Glenn Reynolds:

When you endorse one group’s mob violence, you’ve endorsed all mob violence. Which means the Dems pretty much own what happened on Capitol Hill.

Andy Ngo:

Why was similar language not applied to the rioters who stormed, destroyed, looted and torched government buildings in 2020? Why was the months-long attempts to burn down the federal courthouse in downtown Portland not called “insurrection”?

Stephen Kruiser:

The media finally finds a mob it doesn’t like. …

The first thing I noticed while scanning the news was that virtually every conservative commenting on the situation was condemning the violence. Immediately. That stood in stark contrast to high-ranking Democrats and their flying monkeys in the mainstream media spending all last summer telling us that things were peaceful while we were staring at burning buildings. …

I didn’t think President Trump handled things well at all yesterday and I don’t care who gets mad at me for saying that. .. However, that doesn’t mean I need to get in lockstep with the Democratic narrative to distance myself. Far too many Republicans did that yesterday and, believe me, names are being taken by those of us who aren’t ready to roll over for the Democrats just because some drunk, emotionally stunted a-holes decided to bust into the Capitol. Figure out a way to be upset with those who broke the law yesterday without having to leg-hump Ilhan Omar and her impeachment fever dream just so you can get a “Good boy!” from The New York Times during a tense news cycle.

Kamala Harris:

In June 2020, in the aftermath of the nationwide rioting following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer, Kamala Harris even gleefully predicted that the rioting wouldn’t end, telling Stephen Colbert, host of “The Late Show,” that they shouldn’t end.

“They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop,” she told him. “This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop. And everyone beware because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that. They’re not gonna let up and they should not.

28 Times Media And Democrats Excused Or Endorsed Violence Committed By Left-Wing Activists in the Last Year, by Tristan Justice.

Not one prominent conservative pundit or politician with any significant platform was reported to have tried endorsing the mob of Trump supporters infiltrating the U.S. Capitol. To the contrary, conservatives spent months vilifying Democratic leaders for not doing enough in their own states and cities to crack down on the militant mobs of leftists taking streets under siege, normalizing the kind of political violence on track to appear routine in the nightmare 2020 decade.

It was only seven months ago that Washington D.C. was last on fire.

Only some riots go down the memory hole.

Is there a double standard of treatment between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the overall majority of the media?

Yes, but not the way you think. The majority of the media are sticking to reality as do Democrats. Republicans stick to anything that brings them power, lies, conspiracy theories, insurrection, it doesn’t matter. Consequently there is more conflict between the media and Republicans than between the media and Democrats.

You might find that biased but it isn’t. It’s not the media’s job to report both sides equally. It’s their job to report the truth. If Trump says the election was rigged and the media says that there is no evidence for that, that is not biased. That is journalism. That is their fucking job.

Republicans could very easily stop this “bias”. All they would have to do is stop lying. But since lying is kind of their business scheme, that is not going to happen any time soon.

The 3 biggest liberal double standards

Democrats have no problem going against their purported beliefs when it suits them

Everyone knows that ideological polarization and rancorous partisanship have been on the rise in recent years. Who is to blame? Entranced by memories of the bipartisan compromises and chummy camaraderie that once prevailed in the nation’s capital, prominent members of the Washington press corps like to blame both parties equally.

This, in turn, enrages liberals, who point out that it’s Republicans who have been marching in lock-step opposition to the president’s agenda from day one — and who turned the previously pro forma debt-ceiling vote into a game of high-stakes brinksmanship designed to extort policy concessions that are supported by few outside the Tea Party.

Fair enough.

But that doesn’t mean liberals don’t make their own unique contributions to polarization.

I’m not referring to liberal policy positions, which haven’t shifted significantly leftward under Barack Obama.

I’m talking, instead, about Democrats placing ideological or partisan commitments ahead of principles they’ve upheld in the past and that they wouldn’t hesitate to invoke against Republicans if the situation were reversed. Call it a proliferation of liberal double standards. Here are the three biggest:

1. Nullification For Me But Not For Thee. Going back to the early days of the republic, some have argued that states should have the power to nullify federal laws when the state considers those laws to be unconstitutional. John C. Calhoun was the greatest theorist and champion of this view, which played an important role in convincing slave states that they were justified in seceding from the Union. It was later used to legitimate segregation. Today it is most often invoked by conservatives who contend that states should be exempted from having to participate in implementing ObamaCare.

Others have taken an anti-nullification position, insisting that federal law trumps state law, and that the Supreme Court stands as the highest authority in judging the constitutionality of all laws, state and federal. This was the view espoused by Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln (the latter of whom was willing to wage the Civil War in order to settle the issue). Roughly half a century after opponents of the civil rights movement took a final, failed stand in favor of nullification, federal supremacy is finally the consensus view, accepted by many (though certainly not all) Republicans and virtually all Democrats.

Except, it seems, when it comes to state marijuana laws. While liberals normally treat arguments in favor of nullification as a cultural atavism, they appear to be perfectly content to permit Colorado and Washington to flout federal laws criminalizing pot.

Technically speaking, this might not be an example of nullification, since neither state claims to be legalizing pot as a protest against the unconstitutionality of federal anti-marijuana statutes. But the effect is the same. Why is it acceptable to permit states to countermand federal law when it comes to buying, distributing, selling, and smoking pot, but not okay for states to seek exemption from the raft of regulations imposed by ObamaCare? Just because liberals like the ACA and think smoking pot is no big deal?

2. Work Stoppage At The Justice Department. In states around the country, attorneys general are refusing to defend state-level laws and constitutional bans on gay marriage when they are challenged in court. And now Eric Holder, the nation’s top law enforcement official, has come out in support of this selective strike by his underlings.

His reason? “If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities.” I wouldn’t have either. But I would have understood that in refusing to do my job, I had committed a fireable offense.

Attorneys general are supposed to enforce democratically enacted laws, and they obviously have no independent authority either to pass or rescind laws themselves, so I have no idea how Holder can possibly justify his position. However noble the stand may seem to many gay-marriage supporters, it is a serious assault on the rule of law. In our system, the people make the laws through their elected representatives and judges decide whether or not the laws are constitutional. Government lawyers don’t, and shouldn’t, have the power to play either role.

This is something that I trust no liberal would deny at the level of principle. But if a cherished partisan cause can be furthered by selectively setting the principle aside? To judge by the silence with which liberals have greeted Holder’s remarks, that’s apparently no problem at all.

3. Liberal McCarthyism. Joseph McCarthy was a thug and a demagogue who abused his senatorial powers to persecute private citizens for their constitutionally protected political beliefs. Liberals are right to treat his crusade as a dark moment in the history of American civil liberties, and they have been fully justified in using his name as an epithet to keep public figures from deploying similar tactics against their political enemies.

But then what should we make of the absence of liberal outrage about Harry Reid’s rant against right-wing industrialists Charles and David Koch on Feb. 26? Taking to the floor of the U.S. Senate, the majority leader denounced the Kochs for funding ads attacking ObamaCare and called on the American people to speak out against the “terrible dishonesty of these two brothers, who are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine.”

The Koch brothers spend many millions of dollars a year to make life difficult for Democrats, so liberals are entitled to their enmity. But the Kochs are exercising their constitutionally protected rights. As far as I know, there is no evidence that they have violated a single law in using their vast fortune to influence political debate. Until evidence of such illegality surfaces, Democrats should devote themselves to changing the laws that empower the Kochs and to fighting the political battle of ideas on its own terms. They should also demand that the party’s most powerful officeholders not hurl slurs at private citizens.

In case readers suspect me of harboring concealed partisan preferences of my own, I’d like to close by making my positions completely clear: I have no objection to legalizing marijuana; I am in favor of gay marriage; and I have no sympathy at all for the anarcho-capitalism favored by the Koch brothers.

On these issues, at least, I am a liberal.

But my loyalty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and norms of democratic civility trumps my devotion to any partisan cause.

If only more liberals felt the same way.

Hillary Clinton lawyer acquitted in Durham probe

This is one more example of the double standards present in the U.S. today.

Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who represented Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, was acquitted by a federal jury on Tuesday of a single count of lying to the FBI.

The decision is a major blow to special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the bureau’s scrutiny into former President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The case had been the biggest of Durham’s investigation, which has lasted three years and has done little to support Trump’s claims of a politically motivated witch hunt into alleged ties between him and Russia.

Durham’s case against the former Perkins Coie partner had been controversial from the beginning. The special counsel’s office alleged Sussmann arranged a meeting in October 2016 with James Baker, then the FBI’s general counsel, to provide data purporting to show suspicious internet traffic between Trump and Alfa Bank, a Russian financial institution.

Prosecutors accused Sussmann of lying when he told Baker that he was not attending the meeting on behalf of any of his clients, which at the time included Clinton’s campaign and a cybersecurity researcher named Rodney Joffe, who had assembled the Alfa Bank data.

But Sussmann’s lawyers argued at trial that the case was thin, lacking any third-party witnesses to the one-on-one meeting or any contemporaneous notes. The defense team argued their client had not lied, that he was turning over the information to aid the FBI, and that even if the FBI did not know the source of the data, it had little material effect on their subsequent investigation.

The FBI ultimately concluded that it could not establish a link between Trump and Alfa Bank.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service. I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case,” Durham said in a statement.

Sussmann on Tuesday maintained that he had been truthful with the FBI and said he was thankful for the jury’s unanimous verdict.

“I am grateful to the members of the jury for their careful and thoughtful service. Despite being falsely accused, I am relieved that justice ultimately prevailed in this case,” he said in a statement. “As you can imagine, this has been a difficult year for my family and me. But right now, we are grateful for the love and support of so many during this ordeal, and I’m looking forward to getting back to the work that I love.”

His defense lawyers, Michael Bosworth and Sean Berkowitz, added in a joint statement that the verdict shows Sussmann should never have been prosecuted.

“We have always known that Michael Sussmann is innocent and we are grateful that the members of the jury have now come to the same conclusion,” Bosworth and Berkowitz said. “But Michael Sussmann should never have been charged in the first place. This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach. And we believe that today’s verdict sends an unmistakable message to anyone who cares to listen: politics is no substitute for evidence, and politics has no place in our system of justice.”

Durham, who served as the U.S. attorney for Connecticut during the Trump administration, was tapped by former Attorney General William Barr in early 2019 to probe the origins of the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign. In late 2020, Barr elevated him to special counsel status, allowing the investigation to continue after President Biden took office.

The probe has lasted longer than Robert Mueller’s own special counsel investigation, and Durham has charged three individuals so far, including Sussmann. A former FBI attorney pleaded guilty in 2020 to a single felony count for altering an email as the bureau was seeking a warrant for a wiretap of Carter Page, who advised the Trump campaign on foreign policy for a period during 2016.

And a trial is set to begin in October for Igor Danchenko, an analyst whom Durham alleges lied to the FBI about his work on the controversial Steele Dossier.

But Durham has provided little evidence to support Trump’s claims of a wide-ranging political conspiracy against him, and Tuesday’s verdict further undermines the former president’s case.

Still, Trump has remained undeterred in leveling accusations against his political opponents in court and in the media. In March, he filed a lawsuit against Clinton and dozens of others tied to the Democratic Party or federal law enforcement, alleging a massive conspiracy to undermine his political fortunes with a smear campaign trying to tie him to the Kremlin.

Conclusion

I started this installment with caricatures of double standards in the US. They were mainly the differences between men and women. For those that have read this posting in its entirety, will know that there a many more forms of double standards in the US. Where ever there are differences in populations you will have differences in standards. The rich and powerful expect to live by different standards, They think this is their due. Politicians get pensions, and have different insurance policies then do the regular people. Is this right , no it is not. Just maybe, if they had to olive by social security, and have Medicare for their insurance when they retired, they might think a little differently. There are even double standards between the ruling party, which in this case is the Democrats. As of now they seem to have a get out of jail free card. I f the Left riots, it is overlooked, if the right peace fully protests it is considered to be an insurrection. Hopefully after the mid terms there will be some changes and maybe a little parity. If our country it to remain a Constitutional Republic we need to eliminate some of these double standards.

Resources

http://www.boredpanda.com, “46 Examples Of Double Standards In Our Society.”; thedaonline.com, “Double standards are unfair, create inequality for all.” By Shelby Bradford; hrw.org, “Is There a Human Rights Double Standard? US Policy Toward Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan: Testimony by Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch Washington advocacy director US House of Representatives Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight.” By Editors; cato.org, “Too Many Foreign Policy Double Standards Hurt U.S. Credibility: U.S. leaders need to be candid with the American people and acknowledge that their decisions are based on cold calculations of national interest, not ethical considerations.” By Ted Galen Carpenter; insider.com, “12 double standards that still exist for women in the US.” By Talia Lakritz; buzzfeed.com, “People Are Sharing Things That Are Considered Trashy If You’re Poor But Classy If You’re Rich, And There’s A Double Standard.” By Alexa Lisitza; washingtonpost.com, “The double-standard of making the poor prove they’re worthy of government benefits.” By Emily Badger;

ft.com, “The Democratic party’s double standards on wealth inequality: Now is the time to redress inequality — but watered-down proposals will benefit the rich, not ‘middle-class’ voters.” By Edward Luce; desert.com, “7 times public officials had double standards on COVID-19: In the field of behavioral ethics, it’s called ‘ethical fading,’ and describes how people deceive themselves to hide the wrongness of their choices.” By Erica Evans; pointofview.net, “Double Standards: Democrats vs. Republicans.” By John Hayward; wentworthreport.com, “The jeering hypocrisy and double standards of the ruling class.” By John Hinderaker; theweek.com, “The 3 biggest liberal double standards: Democrats have no problem going against their purported beliefs when it suits them.” By Damon Linker; thehill.com, “Hillary Clinton lawyer acquitted in Durham probe.” BY HARPER NEIDIG;

What Is Wrong With Our Country?
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2022/05/03/what-is-wrong-with-our-country-lawyers/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2022/06/14/what-is-wrong-with-our-country-double-standards/