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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)