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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)