It's a prime opp for religious fundamentalists of any flavor to insert themselves and convert. Same for the political fundies.
Mr.Fry tweeted about an article (yes, I actually read a tweet...get over it lol ) about this topic. The writers headspace was pretty much cmopare/contrast all the way through. And these statements rang most true to me, though I don't live in the UK.
"I know that he employs expensive tax lawyers and that everything he does is legal, but he surely faces ethical and moral questions just as much as does a young thug who breaks into one of Sir Philip’s shops and steals from it?"
"I find it very hard to make any kind of ethical distinction between Blears’s expense cheating and tax avoidance, and the straight robbery carried out by the looters."
"The Prime Minister excused his wretched judgment by proclaiming that “everybody deserves a second chance”. It was very telling yesterday that he did not talk of second chances as he pledged exemplary punishment for the rioters and looters."
I think a dose of Buddy Guy and Junior Wells is in order for me right now...
I'm not sure why so many people insist on clinging to a sleepy, sugar poisoned version of reality so much of the time; who seem fearful of debate ( is it because they fear their own feelings?? ); and who so need the simplest of answers, or at least need to believe in them.
I'd rather say what I think and be proved wrong than stay silent because I might be.
What do YOU think PC? Why do you think people seem willing to accept the excuses of bankers who squander or fiddle expense accounts for years and when caught, are virtually unapologetic? And when a teenage kid is caught, wish to string him from a flagpole?
Is it because it's easier to catch and string up the poor?
A dog can be beat and it will come back and be nice to its abuser. Their sweetness and loyalty are known in advance by the abuser. Is it what makes the dog beatable?
