TNR defends Kerry against the charge of hypocrisy
In this article:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040301&s=trb030104
The New Republic writer Peter Beinart defends Senator John Kerry against the charge of being a hypocrite.
As with typical articles in this magazine, it is a very literate, very detailed defense. However, nowhere in the article is there a statement of who is charging Kerry with being a hypocrite. The republicans, evidently released a commercial (I've not seen it) which charges Kerry with being unprincipled because Kerry has taken a lot of special interest money. Unprincipled does not equal hypocritical. TNR also uses some clever typology definitions of special interests. They define some of the special interests that donated funds to Kerry as 'less special' than the special interests that donated to President Bush. They also make the interesting comparison that special interests gave more money to Bush than to Kerry. This is logically irrelevent. It doesn't make me less of a hypocrite just because someone else is a hypocrite.
Sometime earlier, the Washington Post listed Kerry positions on foreign intervention. They did so at this site:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040301&s=trb030104
The Washington Post noted that Kerry had been against the first Gulf War, then for the Bosnia action, then for the 2nd gulf war, then criticized it, then supported it, then opposed funding it. The Washington Post never accused Kerry of hypocrisy nor did they point out that Kerry may conveniently believe whatever he thinks will be popular in his State of Massachusetts. The latter effect isn't hypocrisy, its just weak mindedness.
Friday, February 13, 2004
The Media Chasing of Bush and Laying off of Kerry
At the website:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/index.htm#postid273
A radio host (Hug Hewitt) and columnist (generally a conservative) charges the media with hypocrisy. His argument was that big media went after Bush on the National Guard AWOL charges with everything they had but laid off the Kerry-Intern charge and that because there was no factual support for either, this constitutes hypocrisy.
I'm not so sure. Mr. Hewitt is persuasive in saying that big media gave disparate treatment to the two situations. However, the Kerry-Intern charges were only a few days old at the time. More importantly, Mr. Hewitt claims that big media is biased against Bush. The charge of bias actually is a defense of sorts against the charge of hypocrisy. The reason is that if big media believe that Bush should be smeared, they are doing exactly what they believe in. Actually, the hypocrisy is something else, that is the big media pretending to be neutral when they are not.
At the website:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/index.htm#postid273
A radio host (Hug Hewitt) and columnist (generally a conservative) charges the media with hypocrisy. His argument was that big media went after Bush on the National Guard AWOL charges with everything they had but laid off the Kerry-Intern charge and that because there was no factual support for either, this constitutes hypocrisy.
I'm not so sure. Mr. Hewitt is persuasive in saying that big media gave disparate treatment to the two situations. However, the Kerry-Intern charges were only a few days old at the time. More importantly, Mr. Hewitt claims that big media is biased against Bush. The charge of bias actually is a defense of sorts against the charge of hypocrisy. The reason is that if big media believe that Bush should be smeared, they are doing exactly what they believe in. Actually, the hypocrisy is something else, that is the big media pretending to be neutral when they are not.
Monday, February 02, 2004
CBS/MTV shows the breast superbowl halftime ever
Yesterday, during halftime of the superbowl, Janet Jackson's breast was exposed. Today, CBS, MTV (the producing company) and the performers involved are saying it was unplanned.
see: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040201/nysu032_1.html
and
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484738/20040201/jackson_janet.jhtml?headlines=true
it is obvious that the Ms Jackson's wardrobe was specifically designed to show the breast and she wore a pasty on the nipple which is not typical regularwear. In addition the pregame announcement promised a shocking surprize.
see: http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:fdY9BmfrFS0J:www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484644/20040128/jackson_janet.jhtml%3Fheadlines%3Dtrue+janet+jackson+shocking+moments&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8
Conclusion - hypocrisy but the level is minimal. Ms Jackson has shown her breasts (both) before, granted that this was during prime time and children were watching but, really, these are entertainers - they are supposed to entertain and these entertainers aren't that bright either. No one should expect them to be guardians of morality.
Yesterday, during halftime of the superbowl, Janet Jackson's breast was exposed. Today, CBS, MTV (the producing company) and the performers involved are saying it was unplanned.
see: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040201/nysu032_1.html
and
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484738/20040201/jackson_janet.jhtml?headlines=true
it is obvious that the Ms Jackson's wardrobe was specifically designed to show the breast and she wore a pasty on the nipple which is not typical regularwear. In addition the pregame announcement promised a shocking surprize.
see: http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:fdY9BmfrFS0J:www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484644/20040128/jackson_janet.jhtml%3Fheadlines%3Dtrue+janet+jackson+shocking+moments&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8
Conclusion - hypocrisy but the level is minimal. Ms Jackson has shown her breasts (both) before, granted that this was during prime time and children were watching but, really, these are entertainers - they are supposed to entertain and these entertainers aren't that bright either. No one should expect them to be guardians of morality.
Kerry calls the Pot Black
The Washington Post had a devestating and detailed article on the record of Senator Kerry regarding the taking of funds from lobbyists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64727-2004Jan30.html
Apparently, the Senator, who intends his presidential campaign (assuming nomination) to be against the special interests, has taken more funds from lobbyists than any other Senator in the past 15 years (since records have been collected).
He can defend against the charge of hypocrisy only by saying that he will attack the special interests irrespective of the fact that they have given him money. This, however, brings up the charge of hypocrisy in his dealings with individual special interests who must have been lead to believe that Kerry's Senatorial work would, in some way help him. Of course whatever discussions took place would be unknown and not publically discoverable.
The Washington Post had a devestating and detailed article on the record of Senator Kerry regarding the taking of funds from lobbyists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64727-2004Jan30.html
Apparently, the Senator, who intends his presidential campaign (assuming nomination) to be against the special interests, has taken more funds from lobbyists than any other Senator in the past 15 years (since records have been collected).
He can defend against the charge of hypocrisy only by saying that he will attack the special interests irrespective of the fact that they have given him money. This, however, brings up the charge of hypocrisy in his dealings with individual special interests who must have been lead to believe that Kerry's Senatorial work would, in some way help him. Of course whatever discussions took place would be unknown and not publically discoverable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)