Possible baseball Hypocrisy by this blog's author
I realize that major league baseball is somewhere between a bad deal and a barely positive deal economically for Washington D.C.
Yet, I'm ticked off at the city's incompetent handling of the lease situation here which has made the National's deal here on the balance of failing. Is it because I have such a high emotional stake in it that I'm oblivious to the economics of the situation or am I just going along with the local majority.
Arrgg.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Are both President Bush and Senator McCain pro- hypocrisy re: torture
Senator McCain recently sponsored a bill that passed the Senate 90-7. The bill, among other things, prohibits torture. President Bush had opposed the bill.
McCain postition seems to be that we should have clear language saying that under no circumstance do we torture anyone, even unlawful combatants, even terrorists. However, if we have reason to believe that a given terrorist has information that would be vital in defending against an imminent terrorist attact, the persons holding him should use torture to extract the information and await a Presidential pardon. Hmmm.
Bush's position seems to be that the US has a no torture policy but we don't need legislation to prohibit torture.
It seems to me that the word that defines these positions is "contradictory" or "partly contradictory". The problem with calling it 'hypocrisy' is that I am not sure we really know what the Senator and the President are thinking (you can't compare thinking and advocacy without knowing the first of these).
Senator McCain recently sponsored a bill that passed the Senate 90-7. The bill, among other things, prohibits torture. President Bush had opposed the bill.
McCain postition seems to be that we should have clear language saying that under no circumstance do we torture anyone, even unlawful combatants, even terrorists. However, if we have reason to believe that a given terrorist has information that would be vital in defending against an imminent terrorist attact, the persons holding him should use torture to extract the information and await a Presidential pardon. Hmmm.
Bush's position seems to be that the US has a no torture policy but we don't need legislation to prohibit torture.
It seems to me that the word that defines these positions is "contradictory" or "partly contradictory". The problem with calling it 'hypocrisy' is that I am not sure we really know what the Senator and the President are thinking (you can't compare thinking and advocacy without knowing the first of these).
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Professor Pete Singer's Mother
Princetown University has a bioethics professor named Peter Singer. He is somewhat famous for carrying certain ethics beliefs to harsh conclusions. For example, he believes every rich person should give 80+% of their wealth to charity. For another, he believes that people have a moral responsibility to commit euthansia to infants with severe handicaps and elderly patients with incurable diseases (I think the reason is because the resources that are required to care for the latter could, in his calculation, be used to vastly improve the lives of the poor).
Well it turns out the Professor's mother has Alzheimer's disease. Rather than euthanize her, the professor arranged for her to receive care. I read this at: http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp
This is pretty obvious hypocrisy. It is also hypocrisy that isn't very harmful and maybe is beneficial. The hypocrisy also has to be judged in the context that if he euthanized his mother or helped her commit suicide it would be crime.
Princetown University has a bioethics professor named Peter Singer. He is somewhat famous for carrying certain ethics beliefs to harsh conclusions. For example, he believes every rich person should give 80+% of their wealth to charity. For another, he believes that people have a moral responsibility to commit euthansia to infants with severe handicaps and elderly patients with incurable diseases (I think the reason is because the resources that are required to care for the latter could, in his calculation, be used to vastly improve the lives of the poor).
Well it turns out the Professor's mother has Alzheimer's disease. Rather than euthanize her, the professor arranged for her to receive care. I read this at: http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp
This is pretty obvious hypocrisy. It is also hypocrisy that isn't very harmful and maybe is beneficial. The hypocrisy also has to be judged in the context that if he euthanized his mother or helped her commit suicide it would be crime.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Ariana's SUV
Arianna Huffington is a political activist who once wrote a book declaring SUVs to be a tool of terrorism (because they consume so much gasoline).
A number of websites have declared 'hypocrisy' because, Ms Huffington, after a speech at a Sierra Club function, was shuttled back to the airport via a extra large SUV.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003562.htm
is a website which has an image and lots of documentation.
It turns out that Arianna did not order the SUV; a contractor for the Sierra Club did.
Thus it is a bit difficult to declare that Arianna was 'acting contrary to what she says others should do'. One could declared her careless for not assuring that her ride to the airport would be an non-SUV. One could declare the Sierra Club similarly careless. It is also possible that Arianna secretly lusts for a ride in an SUV but we don't know that.
Given the above, we can't really call Arianna a true hypocrite; although maybe some lesser charge would be appropriate.
Arianna Huffington is a political activist who once wrote a book declaring SUVs to be a tool of terrorism (because they consume so much gasoline).
A number of websites have declared 'hypocrisy' because, Ms Huffington, after a speech at a Sierra Club function, was shuttled back to the airport via a extra large SUV.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003562.htm
is a website which has an image and lots of documentation.
It turns out that Arianna did not order the SUV; a contractor for the Sierra Club did.
Thus it is a bit difficult to declare that Arianna was 'acting contrary to what she says others should do'. One could declared her careless for not assuring that her ride to the airport would be an non-SUV. One could declare the Sierra Club similarly careless. It is also possible that Arianna secretly lusts for a ride in an SUV but we don't know that.
Given the above, we can't really call Arianna a true hypocrite; although maybe some lesser charge would be appropriate.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
'Hypocrisy! He Cried
The above is an article in theNational Review by Ramesh Ponnuru. It is available partially at: http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200506140806.asp
The article begins,
EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece appears in the June 20th, 2005, issue of National Review.
[I]t is galling to Democrats — 48 percent of us who did not support the president — it is galling to be lectured to about moral values by folks who have their own problems. Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings. I don’t think we ought to give a whole lot of lectures to people — I think the Bible says something to the effect that, Be careful when you talk about the shortcomings of somebody else when you haven’t removed the mote from your own eye. And I don’t think we ought to be lectured to by Republicans who have got all these problems themselves. . . . Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings. . . . I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy. — Howard Dean, Meet the Press, May 22
Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made so many provocative comments during his recent interview with Tim Russert that his comments about Republican hypocrisy attracted relatively little notice. Republicans were keen to point out that Dean had confused Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. (Isn’t that what Democrats accuse President Bush of doing?) Newspapers, to the extent they mentioned the above exchange at all, noted only that Dean, having been questioned by Russert about the propriety of “mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh,” had defended himself. That was the context in which Dean delivered the above soliloquy.
Now it would be easy to criticize these comments — and it would not be wrong. Immediately following his denunciation of Republicans for “lecturing” about “moral values,” Dean explained that Democrats had moral values, too: “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night. Our moral values say that people who work hard all their lives ought be able to retire with dignity.” And on it went: There was Dean, lecturing about moral values, and in extravagant terms.
You could call that hypocritical, since Dean was failing to live up to a moral norm that he had (one minute before) made a big point of supporting, the norm that we should not lecture one another. But this temptation we should resist: The word “hypocrisy” is thrown around too easily in American political life. The search for hypocrisy in politics is generally misconceived, and in ways that tend to hurt conservatives more than liberals. . . .
In general, the article makes a political argument that conservatives should accuse democrats of hypocrisy because the latter are better at it. This is, in some ways, the mirror image of articles on the left that claim that the right has an advantage in the charge of hypocrisy. The quoted article makes some of the points that I frequently make about trying hard to figure out exactly what the hypocrisy is and allowing for the fact that some people can simply hold contradictory or nearly contradictory positions and believe sincerely in both of them.
I, however, am struck by the fact that these very intelligent and very articulate people still haven't realized that you simply need a typology to address the subject at all.
The above is an article in theNational Review by Ramesh Ponnuru. It is available partially at: http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200506140806.asp
The article begins,
EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece appears in the June 20th, 2005, issue of National Review.
[I]t is galling to Democrats — 48 percent of us who did not support the president — it is galling to be lectured to about moral values by folks who have their own problems. Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings. I don’t think we ought to give a whole lot of lectures to people — I think the Bible says something to the effect that, Be careful when you talk about the shortcomings of somebody else when you haven’t removed the mote from your own eye. And I don’t think we ought to be lectured to by Republicans who have got all these problems themselves. . . . Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings. . . . I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy. — Howard Dean, Meet the Press, May 22
Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made so many provocative comments during his recent interview with Tim Russert that his comments about Republican hypocrisy attracted relatively little notice. Republicans were keen to point out that Dean had confused Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. (Isn’t that what Democrats accuse President Bush of doing?) Newspapers, to the extent they mentioned the above exchange at all, noted only that Dean, having been questioned by Russert about the propriety of “mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh,” had defended himself. That was the context in which Dean delivered the above soliloquy.
Now it would be easy to criticize these comments — and it would not be wrong. Immediately following his denunciation of Republicans for “lecturing” about “moral values,” Dean explained that Democrats had moral values, too: “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night. Our moral values say that people who work hard all their lives ought be able to retire with dignity.” And on it went: There was Dean, lecturing about moral values, and in extravagant terms.
You could call that hypocritical, since Dean was failing to live up to a moral norm that he had (one minute before) made a big point of supporting, the norm that we should not lecture one another. But this temptation we should resist: The word “hypocrisy” is thrown around too easily in American political life. The search for hypocrisy in politics is generally misconceived, and in ways that tend to hurt conservatives more than liberals. . . .
In general, the article makes a political argument that conservatives should accuse democrats of hypocrisy because the latter are better at it. This is, in some ways, the mirror image of articles on the left that claim that the right has an advantage in the charge of hypocrisy. The quoted article makes some of the points that I frequently make about trying hard to figure out exactly what the hypocrisy is and allowing for the fact that some people can simply hold contradictory or nearly contradictory positions and believe sincerely in both of them.
I, however, am struck by the fact that these very intelligent and very articulate people still haven't realized that you simply need a typology to address the subject at all.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
The Koran 'Abuse' Hypocisy (aka Hypocrisy Most Holy)
My cousin sent me an email containing an op ed published in the Wall Street Journal. The op ed was written by a reformer in the Saudi Institute. The article is available at: http://209.197.233.93/content/view/270//
This is the beginning of the article:
-------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
It turns out that the Saudis also confiscate Korans from pilgrims during the annual event if the Korans have illustrations, if the printing is too fancy, etc. They then burn these Korans. Also many Korans have been damaged in Muslim suicide bomb attacks on other Muslims at mosques. Also Saddam Hussein once had a Koran written in blood - a singularly blasphemous act that was completely overlooked in the Islamic world.
The article never actually says what the hypocrisy is. The hypocrisy could be: Saying that Korans are holy but not thinking that but I suspect the people making the charge actually don't know that the Saudis confiscate Korans. They may also not get the news about the Muslim on Muslim violence. If this is so, there is no hypocrisy. However, the leaders of the rioters probably do realize something close to the actual situation.
The hypocrisy could be however, saying that all bibles and korans are both holy but not meaning it in the case of bibles. However, that's not what the charge is.
I think the core belief of the people rioting and demanding punishment for the abusers of a single Koran at Gitmo are actually saying, "Infidels should be oppressed." and they mean exactly that.
The hypocrisy here is that the media don't reach the obvious conclusion when they are probably thinking exactly that. I'd rate this at least a level 4 hypocrisy because if it goes on long enough it does damage the chance of civilization reacting intelligently to the threat of Islamic terrorism.
My cousin sent me an email containing an op ed published in the Wall Street Journal. The op ed was written by a reformer in the Saudi Institute. The article is available at: http://209.197.233.93/content/view/270//
This is the beginning of the article:
-------------------------------
| Wall Street Journal - Hypocrisy Most Holy |  |  |
| | |
| | |
| Friday, 20 May 2005 by Ali Al-Ahmed As a Muslim, I am able to purchase copies of the Quran in any bookstore in any American city, and study its contents in countless American universities. American museums spend millions to exhibit and celebrate Muslim arts and heritage. On the other hand, my Christian and other non-Muslim brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia -- where I come from -- are not even allowed to own a copy of their holy books. Indeed, the Saudi government desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points into the kingdom or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately.... | |
It turns out that the Saudis also confiscate Korans from pilgrims during the annual event if the Korans have illustrations, if the printing is too fancy, etc. They then burn these Korans. Also many Korans have been damaged in Muslim suicide bomb attacks on other Muslims at mosques. Also Saddam Hussein once had a Koran written in blood - a singularly blasphemous act that was completely overlooked in the Islamic world.
The article never actually says what the hypocrisy is. The hypocrisy could be: Saying that Korans are holy but not thinking that but I suspect the people making the charge actually don't know that the Saudis confiscate Korans. They may also not get the news about the Muslim on Muslim violence. If this is so, there is no hypocrisy. However, the leaders of the rioters probably do realize something close to the actual situation.
The hypocrisy could be however, saying that all bibles and korans are both holy but not meaning it in the case of bibles. However, that's not what the charge is.
I think the core belief of the people rioting and demanding punishment for the abusers of a single Koran at Gitmo are actually saying, "Infidels should be oppressed." and they mean exactly that.
The hypocrisy here is that the media don't reach the obvious conclusion when they are probably thinking exactly that. I'd rate this at least a level 4 hypocrisy because if it goes on long enough it does damage the chance of civilization reacting intelligently to the threat of Islamic terrorism.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Hypocrisy on Federal Judges
Both Democrats and Republicans agree on something. They agree the other side are hypocrites on the issue of filibustering Presidential appointees to federal courts. However, just because they both agree does not mean they are right.
First of all, the Democrats are using a somewhat different 'filibuster' technique now than the Republicans used in the Clinton Administration. This is basically because other legislative rules were changed to make it harder to block appointments in subcommittees.
Second, this filibustering is currently limited to Federal Judgeships.
Third, even if Senator X was against filibustering in year Y and for filibustering in year Y+ 12 it doesn't necessarily mean that Senator X is a hypocrite if Senator X has genuinely changed his mind. Furthermore a lot of Democratic and Republican Senators were not Senators 12 years ago.
So lets look at a single case, Senator Robert Byrd. He was for the filibuster back in the mid 60s when it was to oppose the 1964 Civil Right Bill (he has been a Senator since 1958). He was against the filibuster in the 1993-1994 Congress when the Democrats were the majority in the Senate. He now supports the filibuster and made a somewhat famous speech comparing opponents of the filibuster to Hitler's supporters.
Now, given that Senator Byrd is known to be an expert on Senate procedures and Senate history and given that he has not stated why he changed his mind and he has not said 'well the filibuster was bad back in the 90s because nominees could be blocked in subcommittee but now that they can't filibustering is good', we are forced to admit that there is a strong likelihood that at sometime in his career he must have been saying something he didn't believe. The question is whether that time is in the 60s and now or was that time in the 90s. Now what kind of hypocrisy is it. I don't think it is more than a type 3 minimal damage hypocrisy.
This is because the public, or at least most of the public, expects politicians to act on the greater principle that 'my values must win' and that lesser principles (e.g., filibustering is bad, filibustering is good), simply must be sacrificed for the greater principle.
Both Democrats and Republicans agree on something. They agree the other side are hypocrites on the issue of filibustering Presidential appointees to federal courts. However, just because they both agree does not mean they are right.
First of all, the Democrats are using a somewhat different 'filibuster' technique now than the Republicans used in the Clinton Administration. This is basically because other legislative rules were changed to make it harder to block appointments in subcommittees.
Second, this filibustering is currently limited to Federal Judgeships.
Third, even if Senator X was against filibustering in year Y and for filibustering in year Y+ 12 it doesn't necessarily mean that Senator X is a hypocrite if Senator X has genuinely changed his mind. Furthermore a lot of Democratic and Republican Senators were not Senators 12 years ago.
So lets look at a single case, Senator Robert Byrd. He was for the filibuster back in the mid 60s when it was to oppose the 1964 Civil Right Bill (he has been a Senator since 1958). He was against the filibuster in the 1993-1994 Congress when the Democrats were the majority in the Senate. He now supports the filibuster and made a somewhat famous speech comparing opponents of the filibuster to Hitler's supporters.
Now, given that Senator Byrd is known to be an expert on Senate procedures and Senate history and given that he has not stated why he changed his mind and he has not said 'well the filibuster was bad back in the 90s because nominees could be blocked in subcommittee but now that they can't filibustering is good', we are forced to admit that there is a strong likelihood that at sometime in his career he must have been saying something he didn't believe. The question is whether that time is in the 60s and now or was that time in the 90s. Now what kind of hypocrisy is it. I don't think it is more than a type 3 minimal damage hypocrisy.
This is because the public, or at least most of the public, expects politicians to act on the greater principle that 'my values must win' and that lesser principles (e.g., filibustering is bad, filibustering is good), simply must be sacrificed for the greater principle.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Fishing for Hypocrisy
Here is a letter to the editor in today's newspaper
it is on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601223.html?sub=AR
Here is a letter to the editor in today's newspaper
it is on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601223.html?sub=AR
Fishing for Hypocrisy
Saturday, May 7, 2005; Page A15
| |
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Is Theodicy a Form of Hypocrisy?
We had a visiting scholar at Synagogue today. One of his lectures was on Rabbi Joel Soloveichik’s position on theodicy. Apparently, the Rav’s position evolved over time to a point where he felt the entire study of theodicy should be abandoned. This was done because he came to the realization that the conventional theories for the existence of evil don’t fit well with the human response to suffering.
For example, there are 4 well-developed theories of evil:
suffering is for sin
suffering makes you stronger and/or better
suffering makes you appreciate good
suffering lets you have a quicker entrance into paradise
In each case, if one really believed this, the response to seeing someone suffer would be to do nothing because to relieve the suffering would be to interfere with punishment for sin, strengthening, etc.
Evidently, the Rav didn’t have the appreciation for hypocrisy. Of course, the Rav is pretty much the only Jewish philosopher (or other philosopher) who feels this way and also is a devout believer in God. In this case the hypocrisy (doing that which you feel is wrong) is pretty much a necessary one, simply because the theory of theodicy is so dicy. Philosophers have frequently been guilty of not practising what they believe. Russell pointed out that at the end of David Hume's tretise, he abandons his all pervasive skepticism and preaches conventional ethics. Hobbs was also, apparently a pretty nice person who failed to live down to his own philosophy.
Btw, the site for perpetuation of the Rav’s teaching is: http://rav.org/
A good site for understanding theodicy is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Boy George vs. Madonna
Boy George has accused Madonna of hypocrisy on the subject of homosexuality at:
http://www.examiner.ie/breaking/story.asp?j=166029118&p=y66xz998y&n=166030061&x
The article is short enough to quote.
06/03/2005 3:19:05 PM
Gay pop star Boy George has slammed Madonna for embracing the Kabbalah, the mystical offshoot of Judaism which preaches homosexuality is a disease.The former Culture Club singer is horrified the Material Girl flirted with lesbianism - most famously in her controversial kisses with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera at 2003's MTV Video Music Awards – yet supports a religion which believes homosexuals can be cured
("http://www3.adireland.com/adjs.php?n
here are some misc. facts
yes Boy George is gay
no, the zohar, the main book of Kaballah has nothing explicit about homosexuality
yes the zohar is part of Judaism and the hebrew bible condemns male homosexual acts
no, Madonna has not herself condemned homosexuality
no, Madonna does not claim to believe in all Judaic values
I don't think this accusation passes the laugh test.
Boy George has accused Madonna of hypocrisy on the subject of homosexuality at:
http://www.examiner.ie/breaking/story.asp?j=166029118&p=y66xz998y&n=166030061&x
The article is short enough to quote.
06/03/2005 3:19:05 PM
Gay pop star Boy George has slammed Madonna for embracing the Kabbalah, the mystical offshoot of Judaism which preaches homosexuality is a disease.The former Culture Club singer is horrified the Material Girl flirted with lesbianism - most famously in her controversial kisses with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera at 2003's MTV Video Music Awards – yet supports a religion which believes homosexuals can be cured
("http://www3.adireland.com/adjs.php?n
here are some misc. facts
yes Boy George is gay
no, the zohar, the main book of Kaballah has nothing explicit about homosexuality
yes the zohar is part of Judaism and the hebrew bible condemns male homosexual acts
no, Madonna has not herself condemned homosexuality
no, Madonna does not claim to believe in all Judaic values
I don't think this accusation passes the laugh test.
Boy George vs. Madonna
Boy George has accused Madonna of hypocrisy on the subject of homosexuality at: http://www.examiner.ie/breaking/story.asp?j=166029118&p=y66xz998y&n=166030061&x=
The article is short enough to quote.
06/03/2005
Boy George: Madonna a hypocritical homophobe
Gay pop star Boy George has slammed Madonna for embracing the Kabbalah, the mystical offshoot of Judaism which preaches homosexuality is a disease.
The former Culture Club singer is horrified the Material Girl flirted with lesbianism - most famously in her controversial kisses with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera at 2003's MTV Video Music Awards – yet supports a religion which believes homosexuals can be cured.
He fumes: "I have a problem with Madonna's devotion to Kabbalah, because I watched a documentary that said that Kabbalah believes that gay people are diseased and can be cured.
"She's such a hypocrite. This is the woman who has embraced homosexuality and used it to her advantage."
fact 1: Boy George has stated that he is homosexual for example: http://www.astabgay.com/boy.htm.
fact 2: It is not clear what Boy George meant when he said, "Kabbalah..preaches homosexuality is a disease." There is nothing in the Zohar explicitly about homosexuality. In fact, the Zohar doesn't preach. He may mean that some people who like the Kabbalah also feel that homosexuality can be cured.
fact 3: Madonna has had homosexual encounters with women. Other than kissing other women (the Madonna-Brittany kiss at the grammy awards), she does not seem to have romantically associated much with other women since about 2002 or so.
fact 4: While the hebrew bible criticizes male homosexual behavior, it says nothing about female homosexual behavior.
This criticism of Madonna doesn't even pass the laugh test. There is no evidence that Madonna is telling people not to be homosexual; no evidence that she has criticized homosexuals or homosexual behavior; no evidence that she, herself believes anything at all regarding homosexuality.
Boy George has accused Madonna of hypocrisy on the subject of homosexuality at: http://www.examiner.ie/breaking/story.asp?j=166029118&p=y66xz998y&n=166030061&x=
The article is short enough to quote.
06/03/2005
Boy George: Madonna a hypocritical homophobe
Gay pop star Boy George has slammed Madonna for embracing the Kabbalah, the mystical offshoot of Judaism which preaches homosexuality is a disease.
The former Culture Club singer is horrified the Material Girl flirted with lesbianism - most famously in her controversial kisses with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera at 2003's MTV Video Music Awards – yet supports a religion which believes homosexuals can be cured.
He fumes: "I have a problem with Madonna's devotion to Kabbalah, because I watched a documentary that said that Kabbalah believes that gay people are diseased and can be cured.
"She's such a hypocrite. This is the woman who has embraced homosexuality and used it to her advantage."
fact 1: Boy George has stated that he is homosexual for example: http://www.astabgay.com/boy.htm.
fact 2: It is not clear what Boy George meant when he said, "Kabbalah..preaches homosexuality is a disease." There is nothing in the Zohar explicitly about homosexuality. In fact, the Zohar doesn't preach. He may mean that some people who like the Kabbalah also feel that homosexuality can be cured.
fact 3: Madonna has had homosexual encounters with women. Other than kissing other women (the Madonna-Brittany kiss at the grammy awards), she does not seem to have romantically associated much with other women since about 2002 or so.
fact 4: While the hebrew bible criticizes male homosexual behavior, it says nothing about female homosexual behavior.
This criticism of Madonna doesn't even pass the laugh test. There is no evidence that Madonna is telling people not to be homosexual; no evidence that she has criticized homosexuals or homosexual behavior; no evidence that she, herself believes anything at all regarding homosexuality.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Gannon - Hypocrisy or Nothingate
A report for the on line publication Talon was discovered to be working under an assumed name and to have previously owned an escort service for gays. He asked softball questions at two press conferences. A number of left wing bloggers have cited the failure of right wing bloggers to denouce this fellow as hypocrisy. An example of such a left wing blog is: http://www.unknownnews.net/050212d-11bn.html
A blog that is further right than unknownnews.net is: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/james_guckert_t.html
which has a lot on Gannon.
I can't quite understand what the hypocrisy is here.
Is it that right wing blogs are supposed to hate gays but don't denounce Gannon. That seems obviously a false inference. Many right wing blogs are libertarian and support gay civil unions and even gay marriage. Very few of the right wing bloggers are for disenfranchisement of gays (I can't think of a single one).
Or it could be that right wing blogs should be against reporters asking soft ball questions at press conferences (these are conferences with the press secretary, not with the President btw). I can't understand how this could be very important. No one even pays much attention to any press conference that doesn't have the President or S of State, Defense or Treasury.
Or it could be that right wing blogs should be against anyone without 'pure' reporter creditials getting a press pass. I don't get this either. The press pass was to several more-or-less meaningless press secretary events.
So basically, I can't figure out the hypocrisy.
A report for the on line publication Talon was discovered to be working under an assumed name and to have previously owned an escort service for gays. He asked softball questions at two press conferences. A number of left wing bloggers have cited the failure of right wing bloggers to denouce this fellow as hypocrisy. An example of such a left wing blog is: http://www.unknownnews.net/050212d-11bn.html
A blog that is further right than unknownnews.net is: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/james_guckert_t.html
which has a lot on Gannon.
I can't quite understand what the hypocrisy is here.
Is it that right wing blogs are supposed to hate gays but don't denounce Gannon. That seems obviously a false inference. Many right wing blogs are libertarian and support gay civil unions and even gay marriage. Very few of the right wing bloggers are for disenfranchisement of gays (I can't think of a single one).
Or it could be that right wing blogs should be against reporters asking soft ball questions at press conferences (these are conferences with the press secretary, not with the President btw). I can't understand how this could be very important. No one even pays much attention to any press conference that doesn't have the President or S of State, Defense or Treasury.
Or it could be that right wing blogs should be against anyone without 'pure' reporter creditials getting a press pass. I don't get this either. The press pass was to several more-or-less meaningless press secretary events.
So basically, I can't figure out the hypocrisy.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Hypocrisy in the 1958 movie "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"
When I came home from work, Ann had this movie on. In one of the scenes, the plantation magnate, "Big Daddy", played by Burl Ives (Elizabeth Taylor plays his daughter in law Paul Newman plays his son), says that he hates the hypocrisy he was forced to live with every day. He later expanded on that. He hated pretending to love a wife he hated. He hated pretending to listen to church sermons that he found boring. He hated pretending to be interested in charitable causes. But obviously he did it because it was necessary and had he not done so, his image would have been tarnished and thus his power would have been tarnished. Essentially, this is what I have previously defined as a type 1 hypocrisy - with maybe a tiny bit of type 2 mixed in.
Ironically, this movie removed the references to homosexuality that were in the screen play as well as the obscenity in the screen play -- also because it was necessary -- and the playwright, Tennessee Williams, himself an obscenity spouting homosexual, hated that. Also, ironically, the acknowledged brilliant role of Burl Ives did not win an Oscar that year. Ives received an Oscar a few years later for a much less important and distinguished role.
When I came home from work, Ann had this movie on. In one of the scenes, the plantation magnate, "Big Daddy", played by Burl Ives (Elizabeth Taylor plays his daughter in law Paul Newman plays his son), says that he hates the hypocrisy he was forced to live with every day. He later expanded on that. He hated pretending to love a wife he hated. He hated pretending to listen to church sermons that he found boring. He hated pretending to be interested in charitable causes. But obviously he did it because it was necessary and had he not done so, his image would have been tarnished and thus his power would have been tarnished. Essentially, this is what I have previously defined as a type 1 hypocrisy - with maybe a tiny bit of type 2 mixed in.
Ironically, this movie removed the references to homosexuality that were in the screen play as well as the obscenity in the screen play -- also because it was necessary -- and the playwright, Tennessee Williams, himself an obscenity spouting homosexual, hated that. Also, ironically, the acknowledged brilliant role of Burl Ives did not win an Oscar that year. Ives received an Oscar a few years later for a much less important and distinguished role.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
A Defeat for Hypocrisy - Sort of
Today, former Governor Howard Dean was elected as chair of the democratic national committee. A number of democrats are unhappy because Governor Dean is linked with the maximalist position on abortion and close to the maximalist position on gay rights and close to the minimalist position on defense, etc. These are known to be the positions of the activists in the democratic party so, it seems to me that the people against Dean wanted to disguise the nature of their party while the people for Dean wanted to make the nature of the party explicit in its chair. Since the latter won, it is, in some sense, a defeat for hypocrisy.
Yet, Governor Dean is not quite ready to go totally against hypocrisy. He has said that while democrats should stick to their positions they should phrase their positions differently, e.g. instead of saying 'we're pro choice' (or pro abortion rights), they should say 'we favor woman's health options', instead of saying 'we're for gay marriage', they should say, 'we are for expanding human rights'. So, even while hypocrisy has lost a battle, it still hasn't lost the war.
Today, former Governor Howard Dean was elected as chair of the democratic national committee. A number of democrats are unhappy because Governor Dean is linked with the maximalist position on abortion and close to the maximalist position on gay rights and close to the minimalist position on defense, etc. These are known to be the positions of the activists in the democratic party so, it seems to me that the people against Dean wanted to disguise the nature of their party while the people for Dean wanted to make the nature of the party explicit in its chair. Since the latter won, it is, in some sense, a defeat for hypocrisy.
Yet, Governor Dean is not quite ready to go totally against hypocrisy. He has said that while democrats should stick to their positions they should phrase their positions differently, e.g. instead of saying 'we're pro choice' (or pro abortion rights), they should say 'we favor woman's health options', instead of saying 'we're for gay marriage', they should say, 'we are for expanding human rights'. So, even while hypocrisy has lost a battle, it still hasn't lost the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)