Nuclear Weapons for the US but not for N Korea - Am I a hypocrite?
Well today I was reading a piece by a left wing historian and full professor (I forgot the name or where I read the thing) who blamed the US for the Korean war, for N Korea's poverty, for lots of similar things and I found myself disliking what he said and wondering why a nut like this gets to be a full professor. The fellow went on to say that it was hypocrisy to say that the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea shouldn't.
Well, I think the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea shouldn't.
Am I a hypocrite?
In once sense I certainly am not, I'm not pretending to believe what I don't believe nor to say something I don't believe.
On the other hand, I am certainly being hypocritical. I think that the reason the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea should not is because I think the US is basically good and that N Korea is basically bad. However, I don't think every country that is basically good should have nuclear weapons. Should Costa Rico have nuclear weapons? Should the Fuji Islands? Should Denmark? No. No and No. But this is where it gets complicated. I think a problem with nuclear weapons is that they can be stolen or damaged even in a good country and there is always the chance these countries may go bad. So my hypocrisy is only because I like to maintain the simple good/bad argument even though I recognize there is more complexity than this.
Monday, December 22, 2003
John Bradley does it for the money
LGF posts today about a strange case (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php)
-----------------------------------
A Completely Crime Free Environment
On July 29, 2002, Arab News editor John R. Bradley left this (now famous) comment at LGF:
I’m off for a stroll down Jeddah’s fabulous Corniche, the longest in the world and a kind of open air museum peppered with famous, giant-size sculptures. At dusk the largest fountain in the world bursts into life. Ordinary families settle down to have picnics. Polite smiles and hellos from strangers. A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . . .
Today the Washington Times has a piece about soaring crime rates in Saudi Arabia, and it’s written by ... wait ... that can’t be John R. “Crime Free Environment” Bradley’s byline, can it? Saudis confront soaring crime.
The days when Saudis could leave their homes unlocked, even when they went on vacation, are long gone. Thieves have taken to robbing whole apartments, after brazenly parking a van in the street outside.
----------------------------------------------
LGF speculates that the Arab News may have liked his 'crime free' spin in July when he was working for them and the Washington Times liked his 'crime increasing' spin in December.
This is hypocrisy by omission, which is not actually hypocrisy by the definition I first advanced.
LGF posts today about a strange case (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php)
-----------------------------------
A Completely Crime Free Environment
On July 29, 2002, Arab News editor John R. Bradley left this (now famous) comment at LGF:
I’m off for a stroll down Jeddah’s fabulous Corniche, the longest in the world and a kind of open air museum peppered with famous, giant-size sculptures. At dusk the largest fountain in the world bursts into life. Ordinary families settle down to have picnics. Polite smiles and hellos from strangers. A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . . .
Today the Washington Times has a piece about soaring crime rates in Saudi Arabia, and it’s written by ... wait ... that can’t be John R. “Crime Free Environment” Bradley’s byline, can it? Saudis confront soaring crime.
The days when Saudis could leave their homes unlocked, even when they went on vacation, are long gone. Thieves have taken to robbing whole apartments, after brazenly parking a van in the street outside.
----------------------------------------------
LGF speculates that the Arab News may have liked his 'crime free' spin in July when he was working for them and the Washington Times liked his 'crime increasing' spin in December.
This is hypocrisy by omission, which is not actually hypocrisy by the definition I first advanced.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Anti Dean Hypocrisy
Several of the other Democratic candidates have been attacking former Governor Dean for his opposition to the Iraq war. Of these, some had been hedging their own words about the war. As noted before, former General Clark had famously done this. Senator Kerry executed an amazing 24 hour switch. Before Saddam's capture, Kerry attacked Dean for supporting a war resolution that was introduced (but not voted on) while opposing the similer resolution that was voted on - in effect charging Dean with hypocrisy. After the capture, he attacked Dean for opposing the war. Senator Lieberman said that, "if Dean were President, Saddam would still be in power". What Lieberman failed to say was that, since Gore opposed the war, if Lieberman were V President, Saddam would still be in power.
All these may be examples of low grade hypocrisy because politicians don't really have clear ideas and are always changing their mind anyway. A somewhat more serious charge is that when they change their mind, and know that they are changing their mind, they say they are not changing their mind. This has probably led to voters thinking less of politicians which may or may not be a net minus.
The impact of the hypocrisy seems to be pretty low also because Dean is ahead by about the same margin after the Saddam capture as he was before the capture.
Several of the other Democratic candidates have been attacking former Governor Dean for his opposition to the Iraq war. Of these, some had been hedging their own words about the war. As noted before, former General Clark had famously done this. Senator Kerry executed an amazing 24 hour switch. Before Saddam's capture, Kerry attacked Dean for supporting a war resolution that was introduced (but not voted on) while opposing the similer resolution that was voted on - in effect charging Dean with hypocrisy. After the capture, he attacked Dean for opposing the war. Senator Lieberman said that, "if Dean were President, Saddam would still be in power". What Lieberman failed to say was that, since Gore opposed the war, if Lieberman were V President, Saddam would still be in power.
All these may be examples of low grade hypocrisy because politicians don't really have clear ideas and are always changing their mind anyway. A somewhat more serious charge is that when they change their mind, and know that they are changing their mind, they say they are not changing their mind. This has probably led to voters thinking less of politicians which may or may not be a net minus.
The impact of the hypocrisy seems to be pretty low also because Dean is ahead by about the same margin after the Saddam capture as he was before the capture.
Saturday, December 13, 2003
NY Times columnist supports hypocrisy
In an opinion piece yesterday
site = http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13/opinion/13BROO.html
A columnist named David Brooks
I'll quote some of it which concerns the US policy regarding gemerally allowing only coalition countries to bid on certain contracts.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. administration is confronted with three nations that have stabbed it in the back with alacrity. The German leader vowed not to run a re-election campaign based on anti-Americanism, then turned around and did just that. The French government has done all it could to ensure that the U.S. effort to transform Iraq would fail. Russia was also willing to let the Iraqis rot in their slave state.
The U.S. now has roughly $18 billion to spend on the effort to rebuild Iraq, and it must figure out whether to allow companies from these countries to profit from the effort.
The wise course is obvious. You loudly announce that all is forgiven, that, of course, the companies from the wayward nations will be allowed to bid for contracts. And then behind the scenes you stiff them cold.
This policy is hypocritical, so it is probably the right policy to enact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The end of this is not sarcastic.
I'm not sure whether to take the author seriously however. Is he saying that any hypocritical policy is 'the right policy'? I doubt it. He probably means that he thinks this particular policy would be good.
In any case, at least someone else thinks at least some hypocrisies are necessary.
In an opinion piece yesterday
site = http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13/opinion/13BROO.html
A columnist named David Brooks
I'll quote some of it which concerns the US policy regarding gemerally allowing only coalition countries to bid on certain contracts.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. administration is confronted with three nations that have stabbed it in the back with alacrity. The German leader vowed not to run a re-election campaign based on anti-Americanism, then turned around and did just that. The French government has done all it could to ensure that the U.S. effort to transform Iraq would fail. Russia was also willing to let the Iraqis rot in their slave state.
The U.S. now has roughly $18 billion to spend on the effort to rebuild Iraq, and it must figure out whether to allow companies from these countries to profit from the effort.
The wise course is obvious. You loudly announce that all is forgiven, that, of course, the companies from the wayward nations will be allowed to bid for contracts. And then behind the scenes you stiff them cold.
This policy is hypocritical, so it is probably the right policy to enact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The end of this is not sarcastic.
I'm not sure whether to take the author seriously however. Is he saying that any hypocritical policy is 'the right policy'? I doubt it. He probably means that he thinks this particular policy would be good.
In any case, at least someone else thinks at least some hypocrisies are necessary.
Friday, December 12, 2003
Gore revisited
The same writer who did the dec 10 article (see below) has an article today that admits that he didn't write what he wanted to (anger got the best of him).
The issue wasn't Gore's endorsement of Dean. The issue was that Gore implied that he wanted everyone to withdraw. The author also admitted that this implied wish was silly and ineffectual (which is to say that whatever hypocrisy exists is minimal).
the new article is at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092400/
The same writer who did the dec 10 article (see below) has an article today that admits that he didn't write what he wanted to (anger got the best of him).
The issue wasn't Gore's endorsement of Dean. The issue was that Gore implied that he wanted everyone to withdraw. The author also admitted that this implied wish was silly and ineffectual (which is to say that whatever hypocrisy exists is minimal).
the new article is at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092400/
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Is Gore a hypocrite?
In an article on the Dec 10, 2003 Slate magazine
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092275/
Will Saletan accuses former VP Al Gore of hypocrisy.
He uses several quotes from Gore during the 2000 election about how we should let all the votes count. He then notes that Gore's endorsement was specifically done to narrow the field and allow a Democratic party candidate to emerge quickly (before a single primary or caucus).
So is this really hypocrisy?
I don't think so. VP Gore is the nominal head of the democratic party. Doesn't he have the right to endorse a candidate? In fact, doesn't he have the duty to endorse a candidate if he thinks it right to do so?
This is not to say that he made the right decision. This is not to say that some candidates may drop out before the first primary/caucus. But so what? There will be still be primaries. People will be able to vote. Gore's action may (and may not) make some votes less important but it won't prevent people who want to vote from voting.
Not guilty.
In an article on the Dec 10, 2003 Slate magazine
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092275/
Will Saletan accuses former VP Al Gore of hypocrisy.
He uses several quotes from Gore during the 2000 election about how we should let all the votes count. He then notes that Gore's endorsement was specifically done to narrow the field and allow a Democratic party candidate to emerge quickly (before a single primary or caucus).
So is this really hypocrisy?
I don't think so. VP Gore is the nominal head of the democratic party. Doesn't he have the right to endorse a candidate? In fact, doesn't he have the duty to endorse a candidate if he thinks it right to do so?
This is not to say that he made the right decision. This is not to say that some candidates may drop out before the first primary/caucus. But so what? There will be still be primaries. People will be able to vote. Gore's action may (and may not) make some votes less important but it won't prevent people who want to vote from voting.
Not guilty.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Some Nice Things About Wesley Clark
I realized today that quite a few posts have been critical of General Wesley Clark. The fact that General Clark has played with giggly certain hypocrisy should not detract from the fact that he has many good qualities. He is obviously a hard worker, obviously has a high energy level, obviously has a high intelligence and obviously was very loyal to the Army. It is also possible that in the Kosovo conflict he steered the Clinton Administration into a stronger military role than it would otherwise have had, thus saving lives of Kosovars (Albright's book and Clark's book seem to agree on this but disagree on the magnitude of Clark's influence).
On the other hand, it is known that many other high ranking officers disliked General Clark as did his CO (General Sheldon) and the Secretary of Defense (Secretary Cohen). The basis for this dislike is not completely clear.
I realized today that quite a few posts have been critical of General Wesley Clark. The fact that General Clark has played with giggly certain hypocrisy should not detract from the fact that he has many good qualities. He is obviously a hard worker, obviously has a high energy level, obviously has a high intelligence and obviously was very loyal to the Army. It is also possible that in the Kosovo conflict he steered the Clinton Administration into a stronger military role than it would otherwise have had, thus saving lives of Kosovars (Albright's book and Clark's book seem to agree on this but disagree on the magnitude of Clark's influence).
On the other hand, it is known that many other high ranking officers disliked General Clark as did his CO (General Sheldon) and the Secretary of Defense (Secretary Cohen). The basis for this dislike is not completely clear.
Sunday, November 30, 2003
Governor Howard Dean's Records.
Former governor and current candidate for the Dem nomination for President, Howard Dean, has been very critical of the lack of public availability of files of the VP Dick Cheney energy task force, certain 9/11 documents, etc. However, he has made his own records as Governor secret for 10 years which is 4 years longer than any previous VT governor.
An article (with an incredibly unflattering picture of Governor Dean) is at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/999347.asp
So, this is obviously a case of doing what you say shouldn't be done, i.e., hypocrisy. Next question is how serious is it. In my opinion, it is probably not serious. First, because it is easily correctable, second because whatever is in the records is about Vermont and how important can that be. By the way, the records of the energy task force are probably also unimportant. People spoke with other people, blah, blah. They made recommendations. Some were followed by the administration, some were not. So what.
Former governor and current candidate for the Dem nomination for President, Howard Dean, has been very critical of the lack of public availability of files of the VP Dick Cheney energy task force, certain 9/11 documents, etc. However, he has made his own records as Governor secret for 10 years which is 4 years longer than any previous VT governor.
An article (with an incredibly unflattering picture of Governor Dean) is at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/999347.asp
So, this is obviously a case of doing what you say shouldn't be done, i.e., hypocrisy. Next question is how serious is it. In my opinion, it is probably not serious. First, because it is easily correctable, second because whatever is in the records is about Vermont and how important can that be. By the way, the records of the energy task force are probably also unimportant. People spoke with other people, blah, blah. They made recommendations. Some were followed by the administration, some were not. So what.
Thursday, November 27, 2003
A new twist - Financial Hypocrisy in Europe
Back in 1997, the European Union agreed on a new unified currency, began work on a unified constitution (not yet done) and other similar things. To make this all work, the countries agreed that their annual budget deficit would be no more than 3% of GDP (this about the current level of the deficit in the US). Year after year, the leaders in the EU said this was the way to make Europe work. Obviously they didn't mean what they said. This week, the EU board gave Germany and France permission to exceed this amount.
An excellent summary of this appears in Slate at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091727/
Back in 1997, the European Union agreed on a new unified currency, began work on a unified constitution (not yet done) and other similar things. To make this all work, the countries agreed that their annual budget deficit would be no more than 3% of GDP (this about the current level of the deficit in the US). Year after year, the leaders in the EU said this was the way to make Europe work. Obviously they didn't mean what they said. This week, the EU board gave Germany and France permission to exceed this amount.
An excellent summary of this appears in Slate at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091727/
Sunday, November 23, 2003
General Clark yet again.
Slate has another article on General Clark.
It is at http://slate.msn.com/id/2091467/
The article is called "Hughpocrisy". Clark's former boss, General Hugh Shelton had, a few months ago, made a statement implying unethical behaviour by Clark but refused to elaborate leaving Clark unable to respond. Last week, Clark made a similar statement implying the he (Clark) had been removed as a CNN commentator unethically but refusing to elaborate leaving CNN unable to respond.
As they say, hypocrisy is the complement that vice gives to virtue. But they also say, "If you can't beat it, join it". I think the latter applies to last weeks comments by General Clark.
Slate has another article on General Clark.
It is at http://slate.msn.com/id/2091467/
The article is called "Hughpocrisy". Clark's former boss, General Hugh Shelton had, a few months ago, made a statement implying unethical behaviour by Clark but refused to elaborate leaving Clark unable to respond. Last week, Clark made a similar statement implying the he (Clark) had been removed as a CNN commentator unethically but refusing to elaborate leaving CNN unable to respond.
As they say, hypocrisy is the complement that vice gives to virtue. But they also say, "If you can't beat it, join it". I think the latter applies to last weeks comments by General Clark.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
General Clark meets with Ben and JLo
At a fundraiser on 11/17 where the Eagles sang Hotel California (apparently a favorite of General Clark), Ben and J Lo met with Clark for about 15 minutes. Of course, they could have been discussing anything (maybe marriage since General Clark has been married to the same woman for about 30 years). If I applied the usual rules of hypocrisy to Ben and J Lo that I do to elected officials, acedemic officials and the like, I wouldn't have enough time to even begin to analyze the various contradictions, insincere remarks and other things coming from what hollywood sometimes calls Beniffer. This was all reported in the Washington Post Style section page 3.
At a fundraiser on 11/17 where the Eagles sang Hotel California (apparently a favorite of General Clark), Ben and J Lo met with Clark for about 15 minutes. Of course, they could have been discussing anything (maybe marriage since General Clark has been married to the same woman for about 30 years). If I applied the usual rules of hypocrisy to Ben and J Lo that I do to elected officials, acedemic officials and the like, I wouldn't have enough time to even begin to analyze the various contradictions, insincere remarks and other things coming from what hollywood sometimes calls Beniffer. This was all reported in the Washington Post Style section page 3.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Slate writer defend General Clark
Today's webzine Slate had an article that begins:
------------------------------------
Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003, at 4:13 PM PT
What's so bad about winning a war?
I don't know whether Gen. Wesley Clark is qualified to be president, but Peter J. Boyer's profile in this week's New Yorker—which paints him as scarily unqualified—is an unfair portrait as well as a misleading...
-------------------------------------
The URL is: http://slate.msn.com//?id=2091194&
The charge of hypocrisy is not addressed. Basically, the article takes charges in the New Yorker article (e.g., Clark's fellow generals hate him and so did his boss the Secretary of Defense) and says, 'So what.'.
If you are a fan of hypocrisy, Wesley Clark is a gift that keeps giving.
Today's webzine Slate had an article that begins:
------------------------------------
Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003, at 4:13 PM PT
What's so bad about winning a war?
I don't know whether Gen. Wesley Clark is qualified to be president, but Peter J. Boyer's profile in this week's New Yorker—which paints him as scarily unqualified—is an unfair portrait as well as a misleading...
-------------------------------------
The URL is: http://slate.msn.com//?id=2091194&
The charge of hypocrisy is not addressed. Basically, the article takes charges in the New Yorker article (e.g., Clark's fellow generals hate him and so did his boss the Secretary of Defense) and says, 'So what.'.
If you are a fan of hypocrisy, Wesley Clark is a gift that keeps giving.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
General Clark sort of says something
The New Yorker had a long interview (Nov 17 issue which recently went partially on line) and article with General Clark in which the hypocrisy charge (noted on Oct 29) was raised.
The URL is:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact
General Clark's defense against the charge of hypocrisy is confusing. He admits that the war in Kosovo was not legally sanctioned (using the same standards he applies in Iraq). He continues to defend the was in Kosovo as justified (obviously he has to do this because of his role in the war). He first says that the Kosovo war was legal because of the threat to civilians in Kosovo but since everyone agrees that civilians were threatened (actually tortured and murdered) by Saddam, this justification falls apart. General Clark then says that the war in Iraq was fought under false pretenses. It isn't clear what he means by this since, he is on record as supporting the various justifications, e.g., he stated before the war that Iraq's potential WMD was a threat, he stated that humanitarian reasons for regime change were important, etc.
In sum, the defense against the charge of hypocrisy seems to be to just keep talking, get into tangential subjects, change the subject, etc.
Not very convincing.
The New Yorker had a long interview (Nov 17 issue which recently went partially on line) and article with General Clark in which the hypocrisy charge (noted on Oct 29) was raised.
The URL is:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact
General Clark's defense against the charge of hypocrisy is confusing. He admits that the war in Kosovo was not legally sanctioned (using the same standards he applies in Iraq). He continues to defend the was in Kosovo as justified (obviously he has to do this because of his role in the war). He first says that the Kosovo war was legal because of the threat to civilians in Kosovo but since everyone agrees that civilians were threatened (actually tortured and murdered) by Saddam, this justification falls apart. General Clark then says that the war in Iraq was fought under false pretenses. It isn't clear what he means by this since, he is on record as supporting the various justifications, e.g., he stated before the war that Iraq's potential WMD was a threat, he stated that humanitarian reasons for regime change were important, etc.
In sum, the defense against the charge of hypocrisy seems to be to just keep talking, get into tangential subjects, change the subject, etc.
Not very convincing.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
No response from Wesley Clark
As I noted on October 29, General Wesley Clark was charged with hypocrisy by one of the MSN Slate e-columnists. The charge was straightforward.
As I noted on November 1, General Clark had not responded.
Today, I spent some time on the Wesley Clark for President site: http://www.clark04.com/
I couldn't find any response to the charge.
Conclusion: General Clark doesn't think this specific type of a hypocrisy is a big deal. No reporters ask him about this either so maybe the press doesn't think it a big deal either.
As I noted on October 29, General Wesley Clark was charged with hypocrisy by one of the MSN Slate e-columnists. The charge was straightforward.
As I noted on November 1, General Clark had not responded.
Today, I spent some time on the Wesley Clark for President site: http://www.clark04.com/
I couldn't find any response to the charge.
Conclusion: General Clark doesn't think this specific type of a hypocrisy is a big deal. No reporters ask him about this either so maybe the press doesn't think it a big deal either.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
An Editorial on Liberal Hypocrisy by a Liberal
The Guardian (British newspaper) published an opinion piece.
The title is:
Mind the gap
Julie Burchill
Saturday November 1, 2003
The Guardian
The URL of the piece is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1075241,00.html
The opinion piece begins like this:
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I've mentioned before my absolute loathing of what I think of as "hipocrisy". Old-fashioned hypocrisy is bad enough, but my pet hate, spelt with an "i", is far, far worse. Basically, it's what Our Side does; and as we think of ourselves as the opposite of hypocrites - because we're hip! - it's twice as bad. Traditionally, we enlightened types like to think of hypocrites as Those People ....
---------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Burchill goes on to enumerate a number of specific examples of hypocrisy.
She mentions 5 entertainment celebrities, two British politicians and former President Clinton.
Her charges against these people are basically that they are all 'do what I say not what I do' people.
Her specific charge against one entertainer is that she is critical of divorse in the abstract and married to a divorced user of illegal drugs. If this were hypocrisy, nearly everyone would be guilty because nearly everyone is against breaking the law and nearly everyone commits minor crimes every week (petty littering, failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign).
Her specific charge against former President Clinton is that he advocated human decency and yet his personal life had indecent things in it (her actual words are more specific and refer to a sexual incident about which I'm not knowledgeable of the exact details). I'm not a cheerleader for Clinton but gee wiz, what is the President of the US supposed to do, advocate indecency?
In brief, I find her piece someone weak.
I'm also puzzled why anyone cares about hypocrisy in entertainers. Do people expect philosophy and lucid social thinking from entertainers? I'll grant that they are a lower danger hypocrisy but so what.
The end of her opinion piece is a warning of the danger of the hypocrisy of silence regarding the abuse of women in Islamic countries. I've covered the hypocrisy of silence previously on Sept 20, 2003.
The Guardian (British newspaper) published an opinion piece.
The title is:
Mind the gap
Julie Burchill
Saturday November 1, 2003
The Guardian
The URL of the piece is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1075241,00.html
The opinion piece begins like this:
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I've mentioned before my absolute loathing of what I think of as "hipocrisy". Old-fashioned hypocrisy is bad enough, but my pet hate, spelt with an "i", is far, far worse. Basically, it's what Our Side does; and as we think of ourselves as the opposite of hypocrites - because we're hip! - it's twice as bad. Traditionally, we enlightened types like to think of hypocrites as Those People ....
---------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Burchill goes on to enumerate a number of specific examples of hypocrisy.
She mentions 5 entertainment celebrities, two British politicians and former President Clinton.
Her charges against these people are basically that they are all 'do what I say not what I do' people.
Her specific charge against one entertainer is that she is critical of divorse in the abstract and married to a divorced user of illegal drugs. If this were hypocrisy, nearly everyone would be guilty because nearly everyone is against breaking the law and nearly everyone commits minor crimes every week (petty littering, failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign).
Her specific charge against former President Clinton is that he advocated human decency and yet his personal life had indecent things in it (her actual words are more specific and refer to a sexual incident about which I'm not knowledgeable of the exact details). I'm not a cheerleader for Clinton but gee wiz, what is the President of the US supposed to do, advocate indecency?
In brief, I find her piece someone weak.
I'm also puzzled why anyone cares about hypocrisy in entertainers. Do people expect philosophy and lucid social thinking from entertainers? I'll grant that they are a lower danger hypocrisy but so what.
The end of her opinion piece is a warning of the danger of the hypocrisy of silence regarding the abuse of women in Islamic countries. I've covered the hypocrisy of silence previously on Sept 20, 2003.
Nothing from General Clark in response to the charge of hypocrisy made 4 days ago.
Hypocrisy is not a 'guilty unless explained' kind of thing. If Clark doesn't respond to the charges, it doesn't make him an automatic hypocrite, nor does it get him off the hypocrite hook.
If he doesn't respond in a few more days, well, I'll just have to analyze it without him.
Hypocrisy is not a 'guilty unless explained' kind of thing. If Clark doesn't respond to the charges, it doesn't make him an automatic hypocrite, nor does it get him off the hypocrite hook.
If he doesn't respond in a few more days, well, I'll just have to analyze it without him.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
A candidate charged with hypocrisy.
MSN's Slate webzine had an article (oct 28) entitled,
Clark's hypocritical obstructionism on Iraq.
By William Saletan
the website of the post is: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090437/
The upshot of the article (written by an individual who doesn't like President Bush) was that in 1999, General Wesley Clark defended the military action in Bosnia by saying that if we display weakness in Bosnia, the dictators will survive to ruin more lives and a whole region of Europe. In 2003, General Clark is (at least lately) saying we should leave Iraq asap and spend as little as possible to rebuild Iraq. This, in the writer's eye, makes General Clark a hypocrite.
The article is recent and General Clark deserves some time to defend himself so I'll wait until then to do analysis. General Clark could assert that there are key differences between the Bosnian and the Iraq situation (although the only one I can see easily is that in Bosnia, the American action was almost all air power and also in Bosnia the dictator's forces were less evil). He could also assert that he has learned things from Bosnia and changed his mind (although politicians rarely do that). General Clark could also say that leaving Iraq asap with as little reconstruction as possible is not showing weakness because we did remove Saddam's government from power. I would predict General Clark tries the 'there is a big difference between Bosnia and Iraq' defense but we'll see.
MSN's Slate webzine had an article (oct 28) entitled,
Clark's hypocritical obstructionism on Iraq.
By William Saletan
the website of the post is: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090437/
The upshot of the article (written by an individual who doesn't like President Bush) was that in 1999, General Wesley Clark defended the military action in Bosnia by saying that if we display weakness in Bosnia, the dictators will survive to ruin more lives and a whole region of Europe. In 2003, General Clark is (at least lately) saying we should leave Iraq asap and spend as little as possible to rebuild Iraq. This, in the writer's eye, makes General Clark a hypocrite.
The article is recent and General Clark deserves some time to defend himself so I'll wait until then to do analysis. General Clark could assert that there are key differences between the Bosnian and the Iraq situation (although the only one I can see easily is that in Bosnia, the American action was almost all air power and also in Bosnia the dictator's forces were less evil). He could also assert that he has learned things from Bosnia and changed his mind (although politicians rarely do that). General Clark could also say that leaving Iraq asap with as little reconstruction as possible is not showing weakness because we did remove Saddam's government from power. I would predict General Clark tries the 'there is a big difference between Bosnia and Iraq' defense but we'll see.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
The unintentional hypocrisy of the Easterblogg.
In addition to all the previous exceptions and nuances, there is another one I've discovered recently. It comes about when you imply something you don't mean to imply. Thus even though you are saying something you don't believe in (nominal hypocrisy), it was unintentional. Certainly if you correct your error soon enough, it ought not to count as hypocrisy.
Here is what happened recently.
A well known writer named Greg Easterbrook writes for a number of companies. One of his venues is a blog hosted by the New Republic (which also hosted the a discussion of the hatred President Bush among the left - discussed in my post below of Oct 13, 2003).
In his blog (called the Easterblogg), Mr Easterbrook uses language that evokes the antisemitism of the medieval variety. This use of language is considered, by nearly everyone, to have been an error and unintended. The causes of the error include the haste with which it was written as well as the attempt to convey too many thoughts with too few words.
The New Republic apologized for the error at this site: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=editorial102003.
Gregg Easterbrook apologized for the error on the October 16 entry of his blog: http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml.
The original offensive language appears on the October 13 entry of his blog
It seems he basically said that Jews were moneygrubbers while not meaning what he said. This, as noted, is nominal hypocrisy. However, he clearly and unabiguously apologized (while leaving the original language appear - many people just remove mistakes and pretend they never happened). The vast majority of people believe his apology. He ended up losing money since the Disney Corporation, which didn't like him for other reasons, used the mistake to fire him from ESPN (a Disney owned subsidiary).
In addition to all the previous exceptions and nuances, there is another one I've discovered recently. It comes about when you imply something you don't mean to imply. Thus even though you are saying something you don't believe in (nominal hypocrisy), it was unintentional. Certainly if you correct your error soon enough, it ought not to count as hypocrisy.
Here is what happened recently.
A well known writer named Greg Easterbrook writes for a number of companies. One of his venues is a blog hosted by the New Republic (which also hosted the a discussion of the hatred President Bush among the left - discussed in my post below of Oct 13, 2003).
In his blog (called the Easterblogg), Mr Easterbrook uses language that evokes the antisemitism of the medieval variety. This use of language is considered, by nearly everyone, to have been an error and unintended. The causes of the error include the haste with which it was written as well as the attempt to convey too many thoughts with too few words.
The New Republic apologized for the error at this site: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=editorial102003.
Gregg Easterbrook apologized for the error on the October 16 entry of his blog: http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml.
The original offensive language appears on the October 13 entry of his blog
It seems he basically said that Jews were moneygrubbers while not meaning what he said. This, as noted, is nominal hypocrisy. However, he clearly and unabiguously apologized (while leaving the original language appear - many people just remove mistakes and pretend they never happened). The vast majority of people believe his apology. He ended up losing money since the Disney Corporation, which didn't like him for other reasons, used the mistake to fire him from ESPN (a Disney owned subsidiary).
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Today, the Washington Post has an article quoting, at length, the Sept article in the New Republic that I discussed on Oct 13.
The post article is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46805-2003Oct18?language=printer
The word 'hypocrisy' doesn't occur in the article. There is also considerable discussion about the difference between Clinton hatred, Nixon hatred and Bush hatred.
The post article is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46805-2003Oct18?language=printer
The word 'hypocrisy' doesn't occur in the article. There is also considerable discussion about the difference between Clinton hatred, Nixon hatred and Bush hatred.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Somebody asks himself the hypocrisy question
In an online column Oct 15, 2003, David Frum who writes on political issues in books (one book made the best seller list) and articles titles an hotlink “Am I a Hypocrite”. The link directed article (available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp - see the Oct 15, 2003 entry) seems to be a response to an article by a columnist from the Chicago Tribune. Frum feels the Tribune article calls Frum a hypocrite.
The basis of the hypocrisy charge is that Frum, a Republican, did not condemn Governor Elect Arnold Schwartzenegger on sex abuse but that in the past Frum had done so with former President Clinton. Embedded in this is the assumption that Frum must either believe that sex abuse makes one disqualified from serving in high office (in which case his silence on Schwartzenegger is a case of hypocrisy by silence) or must believe that sex abuse does not disqualify one in which case his condemnation of Clinton is a case of hypocrisy.
I don’t have a comprehensive list of all of Frum’s statements about Clinton, nor Frum’s statements about Schwartzenegger, however, Frum defends himself citing the differences between the two cases. Examples follow:
1.Clinton was an elected official when the sex abuse took place, Arnold was an actor when the sex abuse took place
2. Clinton used government personnel to cover up or facilitate the abuse.
3. In one case (in Arkansas), rape and battery have been alleged.
4. In Clinton’s case, there was false testimony to a grand jury
Now, personally, I’m confused about the charge itself. Condemnation of anyone, be it a President, a governor, an actor, can be over a wide range. Condemning someone does not mean saying they are necessarily unfit for office. Furthermore, condemning an act is somewhat different than condemning a person. Finally, condemnation is frequently based on more than one incident.
In short, I can’t make sense out of either the charge against Frum nor Frum’s defense of himself.
In an online column Oct 15, 2003, David Frum who writes on political issues in books (one book made the best seller list) and articles titles an hotlink “Am I a Hypocrite”. The link directed article (available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp - see the Oct 15, 2003 entry) seems to be a response to an article by a columnist from the Chicago Tribune. Frum feels the Tribune article calls Frum a hypocrite.
The basis of the hypocrisy charge is that Frum, a Republican, did not condemn Governor Elect Arnold Schwartzenegger on sex abuse but that in the past Frum had done so with former President Clinton. Embedded in this is the assumption that Frum must either believe that sex abuse makes one disqualified from serving in high office (in which case his silence on Schwartzenegger is a case of hypocrisy by silence) or must believe that sex abuse does not disqualify one in which case his condemnation of Clinton is a case of hypocrisy.
I don’t have a comprehensive list of all of Frum’s statements about Clinton, nor Frum’s statements about Schwartzenegger, however, Frum defends himself citing the differences between the two cases. Examples follow:
1.Clinton was an elected official when the sex abuse took place, Arnold was an actor when the sex abuse took place
2. Clinton used government personnel to cover up or facilitate the abuse.
3. In one case (in Arkansas), rape and battery have been alleged.
4. In Clinton’s case, there was false testimony to a grand jury
Now, personally, I’m confused about the charge itself. Condemnation of anyone, be it a President, a governor, an actor, can be over a wide range. Condemning someone does not mean saying they are necessarily unfit for office. Furthermore, condemning an act is somewhat different than condemning a person. Finally, condemnation is frequently based on more than one incident.
In short, I can’t make sense out of either the charge against Frum nor Frum’s defense of himself.
Monday, October 13, 2003
Another case of non hypocrisy because of creeping insanity
A remarkable case of self confessed creeping insanity was published by the left wing weekly "The New Republic" in its Sept 18 edition. The e-version is available at:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=gfI/vvY5VZirXupcsQoN5m
In a fairly long article, the well known, highly knowledgeable and highly analytic Jonathan Chait tells why he hates President George Bush. Here is a section which includes a quote indicating that this hatred is not uncommon:
".... I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.
There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche. Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling."..."
now here is an apparent example of hypocrisy
"...Combined with his stated desire to eliminate virtually all taxes on capital income and to privatize Medicare and Social Security, it's not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush would like to roll back the federal government to something resembling its pre-New Deal state...."
No one thinks Bush wants to privatize Medicare and Social Security. It is true that Bush has advocated that people have the option of privately managing part of their Social security account (it is also true that there are many problems with this concept) but that is hardly the same thing as privatizing it. As for the rolling back the federal government to pre New Deal, the idea is laughable. One of the signature efforts of the Bush administration is a prescription drug benefit program which would be an enormous increase in the size and cost of government. Now there are many problems with this idea but none of them relates to a decrease in the roll of the federal government. Similarly, Bush does not advocate a significant decrease in the major role the federal government has taken in the past 70 years in education, health care, welfare, law enforcement, etc. Indeed, with respect to the latter issue the Bush administration proposes an increase in the role of the federal government in law enforcement (amendments to the Patriot Act). Now these amendments may be a good idea, they may be a bad idea, but they are certainly not a roll back in the federal government. Mr. Chait surely knows this with part of his brain. Now apparently because the rest of his brain is slowing becoming infected with hatred, I think this knowledge is being drowned out (although several months ago it would not have been drowned out).
Thus Mr. Chait has to be considered innocent of hypocrisy by virtue of the creeping insanity of his hatred of President Bush.
A remarkable case of self confessed creeping insanity was published by the left wing weekly "The New Republic" in its Sept 18 edition. The e-version is available at:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=gfI/vvY5VZirXupcsQoN5m
In a fairly long article, the well known, highly knowledgeable and highly analytic Jonathan Chait tells why he hates President George Bush. Here is a section which includes a quote indicating that this hatred is not uncommon:
".... I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.
There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche. Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling."..."
now here is an apparent example of hypocrisy
"...Combined with his stated desire to eliminate virtually all taxes on capital income and to privatize Medicare and Social Security, it's not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush would like to roll back the federal government to something resembling its pre-New Deal state...."
No one thinks Bush wants to privatize Medicare and Social Security. It is true that Bush has advocated that people have the option of privately managing part of their Social security account (it is also true that there are many problems with this concept) but that is hardly the same thing as privatizing it. As for the rolling back the federal government to pre New Deal, the idea is laughable. One of the signature efforts of the Bush administration is a prescription drug benefit program which would be an enormous increase in the size and cost of government. Now there are many problems with this idea but none of them relates to a decrease in the roll of the federal government. Similarly, Bush does not advocate a significant decrease in the major role the federal government has taken in the past 70 years in education, health care, welfare, law enforcement, etc. Indeed, with respect to the latter issue the Bush administration proposes an increase in the role of the federal government in law enforcement (amendments to the Patriot Act). Now these amendments may be a good idea, they may be a bad idea, but they are certainly not a roll back in the federal government. Mr. Chait surely knows this with part of his brain. Now apparently because the rest of his brain is slowing becoming infected with hatred, I think this knowledge is being drowned out (although several months ago it would not have been drowned out).
Thus Mr. Chait has to be considered innocent of hypocrisy by virtue of the creeping insanity of his hatred of President Bush.
Saturday, October 04, 2003
Not hypocrisy by reason of emotion
Just a few hours ago, there was another suicide bomber in Haifa. About 20 people were murdered. In the wake of this, lots of Israelis say to expel Arafat. Others say that expelling Arafat will lead to more murders of this kind. Both groups are seemingly sure of themselves.
The IDF, which has a large knowledge base says that expelling Arafat would likely do little to reduce these murders in the short term and might or might not increase them in the longer term.
The people (in the first paragraph) who say they are sure know about the IDF opinion. So how can they say what they don't believe or at least don't have a rational belief. I think the answer is that their emotions are interfering with their cognition. Anger has a way of doing that and I have had personnal experience with it. In fact when I read about the suicide bombing my first reaction was anger.
Once, at work, I strongly advocated (for a week) policy that I knew would be useless and would actually negatively impact my own interests because of an emotional issue. It took me a weekend to realize what I was doing.
Just a few hours ago, there was another suicide bomber in Haifa. About 20 people were murdered. In the wake of this, lots of Israelis say to expel Arafat. Others say that expelling Arafat will lead to more murders of this kind. Both groups are seemingly sure of themselves.
The IDF, which has a large knowledge base says that expelling Arafat would likely do little to reduce these murders in the short term and might or might not increase them in the longer term.
The people (in the first paragraph) who say they are sure know about the IDF opinion. So how can they say what they don't believe or at least don't have a rational belief. I think the answer is that their emotions are interfering with their cognition. Anger has a way of doing that and I have had personnal experience with it. In fact when I read about the suicide bombing my first reaction was anger.
Once, at work, I strongly advocated (for a week) policy that I knew would be useless and would actually negatively impact my own interests because of an emotional issue. It took me a weekend to realize what I was doing.
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Author of much googled 'Hypocrisy' essay dies
On Sept 02, 2003 I wrote about the Hypocrisy essay by Edward Said. A few days ago, Edward Said died. None of the obits that I read mentioned the hypocrisy essay. Virtually all of them mentioned the book Orientalism and its enormous influence in the field of Middle East Studies. A few mentioned that the book that the book had numerous egregious errors in it.
I didn't see any obits that mentioned that on Sept 11, 2001, the Nation published a piece by Edward Said in which he complained, in essence, that the bogeyman of Islamic terrorism really didn't exist. Hypocrisy by silence is, as noted below in the case of Republicans who remain silent on the problem of the deficit, not classifiable as hyposrisy at all by the strict rules I set out in early Sept 2003. It is also, apparently, more common than I had thought.
On Sept 02, 2003 I wrote about the Hypocrisy essay by Edward Said. A few days ago, Edward Said died. None of the obits that I read mentioned the hypocrisy essay. Virtually all of them mentioned the book Orientalism and its enormous influence in the field of Middle East Studies. A few mentioned that the book that the book had numerous egregious errors in it.
I didn't see any obits that mentioned that on Sept 11, 2001, the Nation published a piece by Edward Said in which he complained, in essence, that the bogeyman of Islamic terrorism really didn't exist. Hypocrisy by silence is, as noted below in the case of Republicans who remain silent on the problem of the deficit, not classifiable as hyposrisy at all by the strict rules I set out in early Sept 2003. It is also, apparently, more common than I had thought.
Saturday, September 20, 2003
Republican Silence on the Deficit; does it count as hypocrisy?
There is no dispute that the US has an enormous budget deficit. The current year estimated deficit will likely be about $500 billion or more than $2000 per capita. Democrats criticize President Bush pretending that many factors beyond the President’s control are actually within his control and pretend that deficits are making the unemployment problem worse. This is an ordinary hypocrisy and I’m not going to elaborate on it. The Republican response to the deficit is different. Basically it amounts to not saying anything. If a Democrat was President, there is little doubt the Republicans would be constantly pointing to the deficit, constantly analyzing the deficit, constantly discussing the deficit, etc. Now, for hypocrisy to be in effect, the Republicans would have to believe that deficits are bad (not much doubt here) and the big deficits are very bad (even less doubt) and for the Republicans to say what they don’t believe. The second of these conditions could be considered not met since, as noted, the basic Republican tactic is to say nothing. It seems wrong to let the Republicans have a pass on the hypocrisy charge but by my definitions back on August 31, I don’t think I could credibly charge them with hypocrisy.
If it were hypocrisy, this would be at least a moderately dangerous hypocrisy and possibly substantially dangerous hypocrisy since accumulating deficits will hinder the actions of future Presidents (maybe even the current President). However, it is only fair to say that, at the moment, as the US is coming out of recession and with even some threat of deflation, the huge deficit is not harmful. Once employment starts to rise and business is tempted to invest in large capacity additions, a huge deficit will be a problem. It is not a good sign that while the Democrats won’t acknowledge the ‘at the moment’ proposition, the Republicans won’t acknowledge the ‘once employment starts to rise’ element.
There is no dispute that the US has an enormous budget deficit. The current year estimated deficit will likely be about $500 billion or more than $2000 per capita. Democrats criticize President Bush pretending that many factors beyond the President’s control are actually within his control and pretend that deficits are making the unemployment problem worse. This is an ordinary hypocrisy and I’m not going to elaborate on it. The Republican response to the deficit is different. Basically it amounts to not saying anything. If a Democrat was President, there is little doubt the Republicans would be constantly pointing to the deficit, constantly analyzing the deficit, constantly discussing the deficit, etc. Now, for hypocrisy to be in effect, the Republicans would have to believe that deficits are bad (not much doubt here) and the big deficits are very bad (even less doubt) and for the Republicans to say what they don’t believe. The second of these conditions could be considered not met since, as noted, the basic Republican tactic is to say nothing. It seems wrong to let the Republicans have a pass on the hypocrisy charge but by my definitions back on August 31, I don’t think I could credibly charge them with hypocrisy.
If it were hypocrisy, this would be at least a moderately dangerous hypocrisy and possibly substantially dangerous hypocrisy since accumulating deficits will hinder the actions of future Presidents (maybe even the current President). However, it is only fair to say that, at the moment, as the US is coming out of recession and with even some threat of deflation, the huge deficit is not harmful. Once employment starts to rise and business is tempted to invest in large capacity additions, a huge deficit will be a problem. It is not a good sign that while the Democrats won’t acknowledge the ‘at the moment’ proposition, the Republicans won’t acknowledge the ‘once employment starts to rise’ element.
Saturday, September 13, 2003
The Johnny Cash exception to the Hypocrisy of pretending to be what you’re not..
Earlier this week I heard that Johnny Cash had died. He was a singer who won 11 grammy awards, whose records sold over 50 million and who is one of only 3 people in both the Rock and Roll and Country Music halls of fame. One of his first hit songs was one called “I walk the line”. The lyrics are:
-------------------------
I WALK THE LINE
Johnny Cash
I keep a close watch on this heart of mine,
I keep my eyes wide open all the time,
I keep the ends out for the ties that bind,
Because you're mine, I walk the line.
I find it very, very easy to be true,
I find myself alone when each day is through,
Yes, I'll admit that I'm a fool for you,
Because you're mine, I walk the line.
You've got a way to keep me on your side,
You give me cause for love that I can't hide,
For you I know I'd even try to turn the tide,
Because you're mine I walk the line.
As sure as night is dark and day is light,
I keep you on my mind both day and night,
And happiness proves that I'm right,
Because you're mine I walk the line.
The song is either about avoiding adultery or about avoiding sin in general. The lyrics, taken in isolation, seem to be a statement that the singer will avoid adultery or sin.
This would, on its face be an example of hypocrisy. It is known that Johnny Cash was a flawed individual. He was arrested many times for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct. He intentionally overused amphetamines, barbiturates and alcohol. He drove recklessly causing many accidents. He commited adultery. This all happened after he wrote the song and started singing it (in the mid 1950s). Was he a hypocrite? The answer is ‘no’. To understand this, one has to listen to the song rather than read the lyrics. If you listen to the song, it is obvious that he is not bragging about his ability to resist sin; he is praying for the ability to resist it.
Earlier this week I heard that Johnny Cash had died. He was a singer who won 11 grammy awards, whose records sold over 50 million and who is one of only 3 people in both the Rock and Roll and Country Music halls of fame. One of his first hit songs was one called “I walk the line”. The lyrics are:
-------------------------
I WALK THE LINE
Johnny Cash
I keep a close watch on this heart of mine,
I keep my eyes wide open all the time,
I keep the ends out for the ties that bind,
Because you're mine, I walk the line.
I find it very, very easy to be true,
I find myself alone when each day is through,
Yes, I'll admit that I'm a fool for you,
Because you're mine, I walk the line.
You've got a way to keep me on your side,
You give me cause for love that I can't hide,
For you I know I'd even try to turn the tide,
Because you're mine I walk the line.
As sure as night is dark and day is light,
I keep you on my mind both day and night,
And happiness proves that I'm right,
Because you're mine I walk the line.
The song is either about avoiding adultery or about avoiding sin in general. The lyrics, taken in isolation, seem to be a statement that the singer will avoid adultery or sin.
This would, on its face be an example of hypocrisy. It is known that Johnny Cash was a flawed individual. He was arrested many times for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct. He intentionally overused amphetamines, barbiturates and alcohol. He drove recklessly causing many accidents. He commited adultery. This all happened after he wrote the song and started singing it (in the mid 1950s). Was he a hypocrite? The answer is ‘no’. To understand this, one has to listen to the song rather than read the lyrics. If you listen to the song, it is obvious that he is not bragging about his ability to resist sin; he is praying for the ability to resist it.
Friday, September 12, 2003
The MECHA situation – who is the hypocrite and what type of hypocrisy is it?
The current LT Governor of California is Cruz Bustamante who is running for Governor in a special election. When he was a student at Fresno State University in the 70s, Mr. Bustamante was active in a group called Movimiento Estudaiantil Chicano de Aztlan (a.k.a. MECHA or MEChA). At the time, MECHA had a number of slogans that could easily be translated ‘For the Race Everything, for others Nothing’ (other translations are possible), another slogan “We are a bronze people with a bronze culture” and a slogan that implies that the southwest US (known in MECHA literature as Aztlan) should be an independent country and the home of the bronze people and others should leave it.
LT Governor Bustamante has had numerous chances to renounce these slogans. He hasn’t. He also hasn’t tried to say that the slogans mean anything other than what they seem to mean. He has instead said that the slogans are not important but that MECHA was and is a nice social club. Is he a hypocrite? Well, if he believes that the slogans are simply recreational racism then he isn’t a hypocrite (personally, I don’t think they are just recreational racism; I think they have enormously harmful consequences). He should however, if he wants to clarify the situation, say that he believes recreational racism is harmless. Obviously, he does not want to clarify the situation.
However, the big media (newspapers and local TV stations) have not been trying to clarify the situation. I think the big media are fully conscious of the fact that the slogans are racist. They are fully conscious of the fact that the slogans are still an integral part of MECHA. The big media probably also think that these racist slogans are harmful. They are, however, acting as if the racist slogans aren’t harmful. This is hypocrisy. Is it necessary hypocrisy? I suppose they may think they would lose some advertising revenue if they reported honestly on the subject but that doesn’t make the hypocrisy necessary. I would categorize it as a minimal (TYPE 3) hypocrisy because MECHA can easily renounce its own slogans, because the violence and hatred created by these slogans has been minimal and because the idea of a bronze race is so idiotic that no rational person could actually believe it.
A place to see the early history of the MECHA slogan is at: http://aintnobaddude.com/2003_09_07_aintnobaddude_archive.html#106313585587252895
SLATE’s Kausfiles at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088021/ ending about Sept 8, 2003 have considerable analysis and links to this story.
The current LT Governor of California is Cruz Bustamante who is running for Governor in a special election. When he was a student at Fresno State University in the 70s, Mr. Bustamante was active in a group called Movimiento Estudaiantil Chicano de Aztlan (a.k.a. MECHA or MEChA). At the time, MECHA had a number of slogans that could easily be translated ‘For the Race Everything, for others Nothing’ (other translations are possible), another slogan “We are a bronze people with a bronze culture” and a slogan that implies that the southwest US (known in MECHA literature as Aztlan) should be an independent country and the home of the bronze people and others should leave it.
LT Governor Bustamante has had numerous chances to renounce these slogans. He hasn’t. He also hasn’t tried to say that the slogans mean anything other than what they seem to mean. He has instead said that the slogans are not important but that MECHA was and is a nice social club. Is he a hypocrite? Well, if he believes that the slogans are simply recreational racism then he isn’t a hypocrite (personally, I don’t think they are just recreational racism; I think they have enormously harmful consequences). He should however, if he wants to clarify the situation, say that he believes recreational racism is harmless. Obviously, he does not want to clarify the situation.
However, the big media (newspapers and local TV stations) have not been trying to clarify the situation. I think the big media are fully conscious of the fact that the slogans are racist. They are fully conscious of the fact that the slogans are still an integral part of MECHA. The big media probably also think that these racist slogans are harmful. They are, however, acting as if the racist slogans aren’t harmful. This is hypocrisy. Is it necessary hypocrisy? I suppose they may think they would lose some advertising revenue if they reported honestly on the subject but that doesn’t make the hypocrisy necessary. I would categorize it as a minimal (TYPE 3) hypocrisy because MECHA can easily renounce its own slogans, because the violence and hatred created by these slogans has been minimal and because the idea of a bronze race is so idiotic that no rational person could actually believe it.
A place to see the early history of the MECHA slogan is at: http://aintnobaddude.com/2003_09_07_aintnobaddude_archive.html#106313585587252895
SLATE’s Kausfiles at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088021/ ending about Sept 8, 2003 have considerable analysis and links to this story.
Saturday, September 06, 2003
The U of Michigan Affirmative Action Case - Is there hypocrisy and if so what type is it?
A well-known case is the Supreme Court (hence Scourt) decision on the matter of quotas and affirmative action at the University of Michigan (hence UMich) undergraduate University and the UMich Law School. Based on the comments in the opinion of Judge Ginsburg, I assume all the justices knew that the UMich was practicing quotas fairly blatantly in the undergraduate case and sneakily in the Law School. The final ruling said that the blatant practice of quotas was unconstitutional but not the sneaky practice of quotas. Since the judges surely do not think the Constitution requires sneakiness, I take this as an example of hypocrisy. The question is what kind of hypocrisy is it?
The argument that it was necessary hypocrisy (Type #1 Hypocrisy 'necessary' see August 31, 2003) goes something like this: if the decision had been non-hypocritical, anti constitution rhetoric would have ensued damaging the country. Another argument would have been that since Universities have enormous resources to develop sneaky tactics, saying sneakiness in admissions is unconstitutional would have eventually taken the SCourt into enforcement issues where it couldn't reasonably go.
I think better arguments exist that it was either minimal or moderate hypocrisy (Types #3 or #4 Hypocrisy). Clearly there are some people hurt by this hypocrisy (the taxpayers of Michigan who will have to pay for more UMich employees at the Undergraduate admissions department so they can implement sneakiness equal to the sneakiness at the Law School, people who will be denied entry into the law school). Clearly some people will be helped (the people who get good jobs implementing sneakiness who would otherwise not have such good jobs, people who will get into the law school). I once had a conversation with someone who had spouted the slogan "this decision is a victory for every student" when the SCourt first issued it. The conversation went something like this,
Me: Every student?
Other person: Every student and every citizen is a winner with this decision.
Me: What about prospective students who can't get it because of the decision?
Other person: No such student exists (first); then, after more discussion
They win by living in a more just society (later)
Me: What about students got in through affirmative action and who would have done better at a lower rated University but flunk out at Umich?
Other person: No such person exists (first); then, after more discussion
They win by being challenged to improve themselves
The distinction between moderate and minimal turns on whether the situation can be rectified easily. There is as of today, an effort to put something on the ballot in the State of Michigan that would ban preference by race. There are considerable barriers to getting such propositions on the ballot and the State of Michigan will doubtless use substantial resources to defeat this proposition if it does get to the ballot. Thus, I would say that this hypocrisy has some aspects of Type #1 hypocrisy (necessary) but more generally seems to be a Type #3 (minimally dangerous) or more likely Type #4 (moderately dangerous) hypocrisy.
The SCourt's decision in the cited case is at:
http://www.usscplus.com/current/cases/PDF/9930074.pdf
A well-known case is the Supreme Court (hence Scourt) decision on the matter of quotas and affirmative action at the University of Michigan (hence UMich) undergraduate University and the UMich Law School. Based on the comments in the opinion of Judge Ginsburg, I assume all the justices knew that the UMich was practicing quotas fairly blatantly in the undergraduate case and sneakily in the Law School. The final ruling said that the blatant practice of quotas was unconstitutional but not the sneaky practice of quotas. Since the judges surely do not think the Constitution requires sneakiness, I take this as an example of hypocrisy. The question is what kind of hypocrisy is it?
The argument that it was necessary hypocrisy (Type #1 Hypocrisy 'necessary' see August 31, 2003) goes something like this: if the decision had been non-hypocritical, anti constitution rhetoric would have ensued damaging the country. Another argument would have been that since Universities have enormous resources to develop sneaky tactics, saying sneakiness in admissions is unconstitutional would have eventually taken the SCourt into enforcement issues where it couldn't reasonably go.
I think better arguments exist that it was either minimal or moderate hypocrisy (Types #3 or #4 Hypocrisy). Clearly there are some people hurt by this hypocrisy (the taxpayers of Michigan who will have to pay for more UMich employees at the Undergraduate admissions department so they can implement sneakiness equal to the sneakiness at the Law School, people who will be denied entry into the law school). Clearly some people will be helped (the people who get good jobs implementing sneakiness who would otherwise not have such good jobs, people who will get into the law school). I once had a conversation with someone who had spouted the slogan "this decision is a victory for every student" when the SCourt first issued it. The conversation went something like this,
Me: Every student?
Other person: Every student and every citizen is a winner with this decision.
Me: What about prospective students who can't get it because of the decision?
Other person: No such student exists (first); then, after more discussion
They win by living in a more just society (later)
Me: What about students got in through affirmative action and who would have done better at a lower rated University but flunk out at Umich?
Other person: No such person exists (first); then, after more discussion
They win by being challenged to improve themselves
The distinction between moderate and minimal turns on whether the situation can be rectified easily. There is as of today, an effort to put something on the ballot in the State of Michigan that would ban preference by race. There are considerable barriers to getting such propositions on the ballot and the State of Michigan will doubtless use substantial resources to defeat this proposition if it does get to the ballot. Thus, I would say that this hypocrisy has some aspects of Type #1 hypocrisy (necessary) but more generally seems to be a Type #3 (minimally dangerous) or more likely Type #4 (moderately dangerous) hypocrisy.
The SCourt's decision in the cited case is at:
http://www.usscplus.com/current/cases/PDF/9930074.pdf
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Not hypocrisy by reason of intellectual schizophrenia - Illogical Religious beliefs
A very common case of intellectual schizophrenia (Problem B mentioned on Sept 01), which would otherwise be hypocrisy is core religious beliefs..
Religion requires belief that transcends reason. Perhaps the prototypical case of this is the Catholic ceremony in which a priest changes wine into the blood and a cracker into the body of god. About this ceremony, the early theologian Tertullian is thought to have said, “It is certain because it is impossible.” Tertullian was a law advocate and his theological arguments are orderly and logical. Was Tertullian a hypocrite for believing in transubstantiation? Not if he was practicing intellectual schizophrenia.
I do not have a working knowledge of very many religions, however, it seems that in each of the ones I know about, there is a core of beliefs that are not logical. Believers, as I see it, compartmentalize and accept beliefs for spiritual or mystic reasons, perhaps because the belief harmonizes with something inside them (a believer might suppose that such harmony was the result of a divine action). Beliefs and empirical deductions can be combined logically. An example is, “if you touch red glowing metal you may well get burned but if god doesn’t want you burned you won’t be.” More complex arguments are those of Tertullian.
A very short bio of Tertullian is at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/t/tertulli.asp
The Catholic Encyclopedia bio of Tertullian is at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm
A very common case of intellectual schizophrenia (Problem B mentioned on Sept 01), which would otherwise be hypocrisy is core religious beliefs..
Religion requires belief that transcends reason. Perhaps the prototypical case of this is the Catholic ceremony in which a priest changes wine into the blood and a cracker into the body of god. About this ceremony, the early theologian Tertullian is thought to have said, “It is certain because it is impossible.” Tertullian was a law advocate and his theological arguments are orderly and logical. Was Tertullian a hypocrite for believing in transubstantiation? Not if he was practicing intellectual schizophrenia.
I do not have a working knowledge of very many religions, however, it seems that in each of the ones I know about, there is a core of beliefs that are not logical. Believers, as I see it, compartmentalize and accept beliefs for spiritual or mystic reasons, perhaps because the belief harmonizes with something inside them (a believer might suppose that such harmony was the result of a divine action). Beliefs and empirical deductions can be combined logically. An example is, “if you touch red glowing metal you may well get burned but if god doesn’t want you burned you won’t be.” More complex arguments are those of Tertullian.
A very short bio of Tertullian is at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/t/tertulli.asp
The Catholic Encyclopedia bio of Tertullian is at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
A complex example that may indicate intellectual schizophrenia (Problem B mentioned on Sept 01)
If you google or otherwise search on hypocrisy, you are very likely to see a link to an article by Professor Edward Said and comments praising his article.
Back in February 2003, Professor Edward Said (Columbia University professor, influential author of Orientalism, former President of the Modern Language Association and many times honored by anti American and anti Israel groups) wrote an article for Al Ahram, a weekly published in Cairo Egypt (and indirectly controlled by the Egyptian government). The article was entitled, “A monument to hypocrisy”. I thought it would be instructive to analyze the hypocrisy that he alleges and see what type of hypocrisy it is.
However, after reading the article, I realized that this was impossible. I can’t unambiguously discern some basic facts; namely, first, exactly whom is being called a hypocrite and, secondly, for what. The most straight forward way to read the early part of the article is saying that Secretary Colin Powell was, in his UN speech in early 2003, coercing the UN into going to war and convincing the US public to back the decision to use military force while knowing that the US would go to war. However, this would not really be hypocrisy (hypocrisy would be saying ‘I don’t want war while secretly hoping for war’ but while Professor Edward Said (hence called Said) may mean this, he doesn’t specifically allege it.
Later there is a statement that every violation of human rights attributed by Secretary Colin Powell (hence called Powell) to Saddam’s regime is one that has been done by Israel. If Powell believed that Israel was a big a human rights violator as was Saddam’s Iraq, then if Powell advocated military force against Iraq but not Israel and if Powell stated that there were no other reasons for such military force, then it would be a case of Type 5 hypocrisy. However, there is no reason to think that Powell believed that Israel was as great a human rights violator as Saddam’s Iraq (I can’t understand how any person whose information comes from more objective sources than Al Ahram or is not devoted to hatred of Israel as an avocation would believe this). As if this were not enough, Powell clearly didn’t use human rights as the only reason for military force and even more, his actual speech left open the possibility to a non-military solution. Indeed, many people believe that Powell hoped for a non-military solution at the time of the UN speech.
The rest of the Said article is a jumble of tangential charges, e.g., that the US sold Saddam most of his stock of chemical weapons, biological weapons and scuds; actually only about 1% of 1973-1990 weapons imports to Iraq were from the US (mostly dual use items like helicopters); over 80% were from the Soviets, the French or the Chinese. Another example is an implication that Bush and Sharon are advocating military action in Iraq because they hate non-white people (This is similar in tone to the fabulously influential book Orientalism. Said thinks he can discern motivation of people from watching them on TV or reading what they say; if he weren’t a professor, he would have a good income as a psychic friend hot line operator, that is, if Psychic Friends was still in business). Also coincidentally, both the US and Israel have cabinet members, appointed by Bush and Sharon, with darker skin than Ed Said).
Well after reading the article, I can’t make any sense of what specific hypocrisies are being alleged and thus I can’t classify them by type. Finally, I’m not sure that Said is guilty of hypocrisy. He may be so full of hatred that he can’t think straight on this issue or he may be compartmentalizing his brain so that the part that works on hatred of Israel doesn’t get influenced by the part that is used for counting, daily communication, etc. Perhaps this comes about because he hates Israel so much that he has to believe certain untrue things are true.
Notes:
The text of the Professor Edward Said article on hypocrisy is:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/625/op2.htm
A review of Orientalism by one of its critics is available at: http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/IslamObscured.htm
A pro Edward Said piece is available at:
http://www.arab-american-affairs.net/Ed%20Said.htm
A compilation of weapons sales to Iraq by dollar value is at:
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
If you google or otherwise search on hypocrisy, you are very likely to see a link to an article by Professor Edward Said and comments praising his article.
Back in February 2003, Professor Edward Said (Columbia University professor, influential author of Orientalism, former President of the Modern Language Association and many times honored by anti American and anti Israel groups) wrote an article for Al Ahram, a weekly published in Cairo Egypt (and indirectly controlled by the Egyptian government). The article was entitled, “A monument to hypocrisy”. I thought it would be instructive to analyze the hypocrisy that he alleges and see what type of hypocrisy it is.
However, after reading the article, I realized that this was impossible. I can’t unambiguously discern some basic facts; namely, first, exactly whom is being called a hypocrite and, secondly, for what. The most straight forward way to read the early part of the article is saying that Secretary Colin Powell was, in his UN speech in early 2003, coercing the UN into going to war and convincing the US public to back the decision to use military force while knowing that the US would go to war. However, this would not really be hypocrisy (hypocrisy would be saying ‘I don’t want war while secretly hoping for war’ but while Professor Edward Said (hence called Said) may mean this, he doesn’t specifically allege it.
Later there is a statement that every violation of human rights attributed by Secretary Colin Powell (hence called Powell) to Saddam’s regime is one that has been done by Israel. If Powell believed that Israel was a big a human rights violator as was Saddam’s Iraq, then if Powell advocated military force against Iraq but not Israel and if Powell stated that there were no other reasons for such military force, then it would be a case of Type 5 hypocrisy. However, there is no reason to think that Powell believed that Israel was as great a human rights violator as Saddam’s Iraq (I can’t understand how any person whose information comes from more objective sources than Al Ahram or is not devoted to hatred of Israel as an avocation would believe this). As if this were not enough, Powell clearly didn’t use human rights as the only reason for military force and even more, his actual speech left open the possibility to a non-military solution. Indeed, many people believe that Powell hoped for a non-military solution at the time of the UN speech.
The rest of the Said article is a jumble of tangential charges, e.g., that the US sold Saddam most of his stock of chemical weapons, biological weapons and scuds; actually only about 1% of 1973-1990 weapons imports to Iraq were from the US (mostly dual use items like helicopters); over 80% were from the Soviets, the French or the Chinese. Another example is an implication that Bush and Sharon are advocating military action in Iraq because they hate non-white people (This is similar in tone to the fabulously influential book Orientalism. Said thinks he can discern motivation of people from watching them on TV or reading what they say; if he weren’t a professor, he would have a good income as a psychic friend hot line operator, that is, if Psychic Friends was still in business). Also coincidentally, both the US and Israel have cabinet members, appointed by Bush and Sharon, with darker skin than Ed Said).
Well after reading the article, I can’t make any sense of what specific hypocrisies are being alleged and thus I can’t classify them by type. Finally, I’m not sure that Said is guilty of hypocrisy. He may be so full of hatred that he can’t think straight on this issue or he may be compartmentalizing his brain so that the part that works on hatred of Israel doesn’t get influenced by the part that is used for counting, daily communication, etc. Perhaps this comes about because he hates Israel so much that he has to believe certain untrue things are true.
Notes:
The text of the Professor Edward Said article on hypocrisy is:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/625/op2.htm
A review of Orientalism by one of its critics is available at: http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/IslamObscured.htm
A pro Edward Said piece is available at:
http://www.arab-american-affairs.net/Ed%20Said.htm
A compilation of weapons sales to Iraq by dollar value is at:
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
Monday, September 01, 2003
A few problems with the Typology (see Sunday Aug 31 entry).
A. There are some hypocrisies that have aspects of more than one Type, e.g., some may be both a little annoying (Type 2) and also minimally dangerous (Type 3). I'll discuss some of these in future posts.
B A major problem with my typology is the phenomenon of gross compartmentalization (a.k.a. intellectual schizophrenia). Some people are able to firmly believe logically incompatible propositions. A somewhat innocent version of this is a person who knows the expected value of playing the lottery is, say 0.5, but has a ‘feeling’ that he/she must, just this once, buy a ticket. I'll discuss a few of these also in future posts.
A. There are some hypocrisies that have aspects of more than one Type, e.g., some may be both a little annoying (Type 2) and also minimally dangerous (Type 3). I'll discuss some of these in future posts.
B A major problem with my typology is the phenomenon of gross compartmentalization (a.k.a. intellectual schizophrenia). Some people are able to firmly believe logically incompatible propositions. A somewhat innocent version of this is a person who knows the expected value of playing the lottery is, say 0.5, but has a ‘feeling’ that he/she must, just this once, buy a ticket. I'll discuss a few of these also in future posts.
Sunday, August 31, 2003
Provisional Typology of Hypocrisy
Many of the best (clearly written, thought provoking, lucid) blogs (my favorites include Instapundit, LGF, Rantburg and Critical Mass and some of the blogs they link to) post examples of hypocrisy. There are so many examples of this in politics, business, foreign affairs, etc. that it makes an easy target. My thought is that these posts typically fail to distinguish between the types of hypocrisy. Part of the reason for this is that no one has, to my knowledge classified hypocrisy. Dictionaries basically only distinguish between ‘pretending to believe what you don’t’ and ‘pretending to be what you aren’t’. The dictionaries give many nuances but basically each falls into one of these structures. So I will be attempting to do what the dictionary doesn’t and can’t; that is, break the hypocrisies into types by consequence of the hypocrisy. The provisional typology that I am using classifies hypocrisy into the following groups:
1. Necessary hypocrisy – can’t get through the day without it
2. Annoying hypocrisy - didn’t have to do it but little consequence
3. Minimally dangerous – a few bad consequences may result someday but there is plenty of time to correct it
4. Moderately dangerous – interferes with thoughtful and effective action but doesn’t substantially prevent thoughtful and effective action
5. Significantly dangerous – substantially prevents thoughtful and effective action
An example of Type 1 hypocrisy: A worker who wants to achieve a particular result, e.g., adoption of a specification within the production process. The worker knows that an honest description of why the specification needs to be adopted, e.g., the existing specification, which the boss developed, is causing problems, would fail to be adopted (because it would assault the boss’s ego). The worker instead pretends the specification needs to be adopted to more clearly reflect the inspiring vision of the boss. Without this hypocrisy, the change can’t be made.
An example of Type 2 hypocrisy: Former President Clinton contemporaneously advocated both midnight curfews and midnight basketball leagues in high crime areas. This no doubt annoyed people who dislike hypocrisy and probably significantly annoyed people who disliked both hypocrisy and President Clinton. This hypocrisy (I assume President Clinton knew that doing both at the same time was impossible) was unnecessary because former President Clinton could have advocated “Managed activity and policing of high crime areas in which both curfews and basketball leagues would be management tools.” It was in any event of little consequence because ultimately the implementation of such curfews and basketball leagues are a function of local government and because former President Clinton's administration didn’t put any serious effort into analyzing or documenting the benefit of the curfews/leagues (neither did any advocates of the curfews or leagues as far as I can tell although that did not stop the advocacy).
An example of Type 3 hypocrisy: Former President Clinton essentially claimed that his misleading the grand jury in the matter of the charges by Paula Jones (actually the testimony in question concerned Monica Lewinsky) was basically the fault of the attorney who questioned him (I am assuming President Clinton knew that witnesses at grand juries are supposed to take that 'truth, whole truth...' oath as a charge to avoid intentionally misleading the grand jury). If this matter had been unchallenged by anyone, the grand jury process would have been negatively affected. Over time, a cottage industry would have resulted teaching people how to mislead grand juries while another cottage industry would have trained attorneys in how to avoid being mislead (this may already have happened, I don't keep up with it). This, in turn, would have made for longer grand jury work and a less efficient judicial process. The matter was however, not unchallenged and in fact, a judge invoked a penalty against him. Even if the judge had not done so, however, governments could have enacted augmented penalties against misleading grand juries to reset the balance to where it had been before the claim.
An example of Type 4 hypocrisy: During the period immediately before the 2003 military action by the US in Iraq, many people claimed that, “military force should be the last resort (hence called ‘MF=LR’) or words to that effect. It is possible that some people actually believed that paying extortion, sacrificing lives of Iraqi innocents, risking years of potential catastrophic attack with chem./bio weapons, etc. should be preferred to military force (possibly the Pope actually thought this). I think most people who said, “MF=LR” simply meant that, “as of now the risks of military force are greater than the risks of not using military force" or "the benefits of using military force are less than the risks' or some such, however that calculation was made. It seemed to me at that time that, the fact that as long as no one seriously repudiates the “MF=LR” mantra it encourages potential aggressors. However, I acknowledge that the next time a potential use of military force came up (in Liberia); I can’t recall anyone (even the Pope) making the “MF=LR” argument. Thus the danger seems to be only moderate.
An example of Type 5 hypocrisy: There are many people, including knowledgeable, thoughtful and highly intelligent people who say, “Moderate Islam is the solution to the problem of virulent Islam (hence called the MI4VI)” or words to that effect. They base such a pronouncement on the fact that in some Islamic areas there is moderation and no terrorism, some Islamic countries are US allies, some Islamic moderates denounce Islamic terrorism, fanaticism, etc., some Islamic individuals have greatly assisted the US in the defense against Islamic terrorism, some Islamic individuals serve honorably, faithfully and effectively in the armed forces of the US, some individuals say that they use Islam as a vehicle to individual dignity, charity and kindness, etc. They might be right about this. However, what if they are not? What if Islam has within it more potential for violence, hatred, etc. than other religions? What if the hate speech that comes from mosques, the murder and mutilation of woman whose punishment is minimized by Islamic religious officials, the threat to murder imagined those who slander or insult Islam no matter how trivial or unintended, the threat to murder any Moslem who renounces his/her religion, the advocacy of eternal conflict until victory over the non believers (none of which have contemporaneous and significant analogues in other faiths) is latent in even moderate Islam (examples of the proceeding are in the blogs noted above and the links they provide)? This is in fact the argument of the website Faithfreedom.org hence called FF. It may be that the people who pronounce MI4VI are correct. It may even be that this will be substantially and effectively demonstrated at some time in the near future. However, I don’t know how the MI4VI proponents may claim this is anything but a hypothesis (similarly the people at FF may only claim this is a hypothesis). The hypocrisy here is that since many MI4VI proponents are knowledgeable, thoughtful and highly intelligent, they have surely realized that their mantra is just a hypothesis. The danger here is the MI4VI proponents, first of all, are in high US government positions (none of the FF people are), and secondly, the consequences of a wrong hypothesis are potentially catastrophic.
A typology of hypocrisy based on how to not be a hypocrite or minimize your hypocrisy is found at:
http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Hypocrisy/
A discussion of why some charges of hypocrisy are ill founded is found at:
http://www.communistvampires.com/articles/hypocrisy.htm
Many of the best (clearly written, thought provoking, lucid) blogs (my favorites include Instapundit, LGF, Rantburg and Critical Mass and some of the blogs they link to) post examples of hypocrisy. There are so many examples of this in politics, business, foreign affairs, etc. that it makes an easy target. My thought is that these posts typically fail to distinguish between the types of hypocrisy. Part of the reason for this is that no one has, to my knowledge classified hypocrisy. Dictionaries basically only distinguish between ‘pretending to believe what you don’t’ and ‘pretending to be what you aren’t’. The dictionaries give many nuances but basically each falls into one of these structures. So I will be attempting to do what the dictionary doesn’t and can’t; that is, break the hypocrisies into types by consequence of the hypocrisy. The provisional typology that I am using classifies hypocrisy into the following groups:
1. Necessary hypocrisy – can’t get through the day without it
2. Annoying hypocrisy - didn’t have to do it but little consequence
3. Minimally dangerous – a few bad consequences may result someday but there is plenty of time to correct it
4. Moderately dangerous – interferes with thoughtful and effective action but doesn’t substantially prevent thoughtful and effective action
5. Significantly dangerous – substantially prevents thoughtful and effective action
An example of Type 1 hypocrisy: A worker who wants to achieve a particular result, e.g., adoption of a specification within the production process. The worker knows that an honest description of why the specification needs to be adopted, e.g., the existing specification, which the boss developed, is causing problems, would fail to be adopted (because it would assault the boss’s ego). The worker instead pretends the specification needs to be adopted to more clearly reflect the inspiring vision of the boss. Without this hypocrisy, the change can’t be made.
An example of Type 2 hypocrisy: Former President Clinton contemporaneously advocated both midnight curfews and midnight basketball leagues in high crime areas. This no doubt annoyed people who dislike hypocrisy and probably significantly annoyed people who disliked both hypocrisy and President Clinton. This hypocrisy (I assume President Clinton knew that doing both at the same time was impossible) was unnecessary because former President Clinton could have advocated “Managed activity and policing of high crime areas in which both curfews and basketball leagues would be management tools.” It was in any event of little consequence because ultimately the implementation of such curfews and basketball leagues are a function of local government and because former President Clinton's administration didn’t put any serious effort into analyzing or documenting the benefit of the curfews/leagues (neither did any advocates of the curfews or leagues as far as I can tell although that did not stop the advocacy).
An example of Type 3 hypocrisy: Former President Clinton essentially claimed that his misleading the grand jury in the matter of the charges by Paula Jones (actually the testimony in question concerned Monica Lewinsky) was basically the fault of the attorney who questioned him (I am assuming President Clinton knew that witnesses at grand juries are supposed to take that 'truth, whole truth...' oath as a charge to avoid intentionally misleading the grand jury). If this matter had been unchallenged by anyone, the grand jury process would have been negatively affected. Over time, a cottage industry would have resulted teaching people how to mislead grand juries while another cottage industry would have trained attorneys in how to avoid being mislead (this may already have happened, I don't keep up with it). This, in turn, would have made for longer grand jury work and a less efficient judicial process. The matter was however, not unchallenged and in fact, a judge invoked a penalty against him. Even if the judge had not done so, however, governments could have enacted augmented penalties against misleading grand juries to reset the balance to where it had been before the claim.
An example of Type 4 hypocrisy: During the period immediately before the 2003 military action by the US in Iraq, many people claimed that, “military force should be the last resort (hence called ‘MF=LR’) or words to that effect. It is possible that some people actually believed that paying extortion, sacrificing lives of Iraqi innocents, risking years of potential catastrophic attack with chem./bio weapons, etc. should be preferred to military force (possibly the Pope actually thought this). I think most people who said, “MF=LR” simply meant that, “as of now the risks of military force are greater than the risks of not using military force" or "the benefits of using military force are less than the risks' or some such, however that calculation was made. It seemed to me at that time that, the fact that as long as no one seriously repudiates the “MF=LR” mantra it encourages potential aggressors. However, I acknowledge that the next time a potential use of military force came up (in Liberia); I can’t recall anyone (even the Pope) making the “MF=LR” argument. Thus the danger seems to be only moderate.
An example of Type 5 hypocrisy: There are many people, including knowledgeable, thoughtful and highly intelligent people who say, “Moderate Islam is the solution to the problem of virulent Islam (hence called the MI4VI)” or words to that effect. They base such a pronouncement on the fact that in some Islamic areas there is moderation and no terrorism, some Islamic countries are US allies, some Islamic moderates denounce Islamic terrorism, fanaticism, etc., some Islamic individuals have greatly assisted the US in the defense against Islamic terrorism, some Islamic individuals serve honorably, faithfully and effectively in the armed forces of the US, some individuals say that they use Islam as a vehicle to individual dignity, charity and kindness, etc. They might be right about this. However, what if they are not? What if Islam has within it more potential for violence, hatred, etc. than other religions? What if the hate speech that comes from mosques, the murder and mutilation of woman whose punishment is minimized by Islamic religious officials, the threat to murder imagined those who slander or insult Islam no matter how trivial or unintended, the threat to murder any Moslem who renounces his/her religion, the advocacy of eternal conflict until victory over the non believers (none of which have contemporaneous and significant analogues in other faiths) is latent in even moderate Islam (examples of the proceeding are in the blogs noted above and the links they provide)? This is in fact the argument of the website Faithfreedom.org hence called FF. It may be that the people who pronounce MI4VI are correct. It may even be that this will be substantially and effectively demonstrated at some time in the near future. However, I don’t know how the MI4VI proponents may claim this is anything but a hypothesis (similarly the people at FF may only claim this is a hypothesis). The hypocrisy here is that since many MI4VI proponents are knowledgeable, thoughtful and highly intelligent, they have surely realized that their mantra is just a hypothesis. The danger here is the MI4VI proponents, first of all, are in high US government positions (none of the FF people are), and secondly, the consequences of a wrong hypothesis are potentially catastrophic.
A typology of hypocrisy based on how to not be a hypocrite or minimize your hypocrisy is found at:
http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Hypocrisy/
A discussion of why some charges of hypocrisy are ill founded is found at:
http://www.communistvampires.com/articles/hypocrisy.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)