Democracy Advocates for Hypocrisy

At least that is the accusation of Haaretz writer Schmuel Rosner writing for Slate.

His thesis is, basically that those who advocated democracy as a cure for violence, oppression and corruption in the Arab mideast now advocate, in effect less democracy because they support PA President (and relative moderate) Abbas in his struggle with the parlimentary majority Hamas.

Rosner's article is at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2155722/

Here is some of the article,

"... British Prime Minister Tony Blair, visiting the West Bank on Monday, declared, "If the international community really means what it says about supporting people who share the vision of a two-state solution, who are moderate, who are prepared to shoulder their responsibilities, then now is the time for the international community to respond."

I'm not sure if Blair thought seriously about this sentence before uttering it—but, in some ways, it captures the essence of the West's real policy—America's too—in the Middle East. Not the rhetoric, the reality: no democracy, no "elected government," no "right of the people to decide" (which they did, in last January's elections). It's the people who are "moderate" and who "support a two-state solution" that deserve the support of Blair and President Bush. And if those moderates lost an election—well, never mind. You can always call for another one, and another one—until the people get the message and elect the desired government."

Well one obvious problem is that if Abbas is calling for new elections, how can supporting Abbas in this case be called hypocrisy?

Rosner has a point that the countries that don't like Hamas don't seem to acknowledge that Hamas won an election. However, this isn't hypocrisy. Its more like refusing to face the truth honestly. Notice the quote from PM Blair doesn't actually use the word 'democracy'. Also, Blair never said that "if Hamas wins we will recognize them..." (if he had Rosner would have found the words). This then becomes more of one of the many annoying things about diplomacy rather than hypocrisy.

Supporting Labor Unions

A prominent left wing US website has in essense accused the right wing US of hypocrisy in that the right wing US supports labor unions in foreign countries (specifically a bus driver union in Iran) but opposes labor unions the USA.

The article notes the long history of this activity, for example back in the late 1980s the US supported the Polish Longshoremen Union (Lech Walensa) but in the early 1980s then President Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike.

The accusation is more fully stated at:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/14/the_right_stands_up_for_labor.php

This accusation is another case of insufficient specificity.

Let's take the 1980s. The US supporter the right of Polish Longshormen to form a union and to collectively bargain and, if they didn't reach an agreement, to strike.

On the other hand, President Reagan did not oppose the right of the Air Traffic Controllers to form a union. He did not oppose the right of the ATCs to collectively bargain. However, given that the law prohibited strikes, he opposed their right to strike.

I'm not sure what the Polish law was about striking but during the cold war most Warsaw block countries had very progressive 'on the books' laws that were actually ignored by the government which used emergency decrees.

In the current case the right wing US does not oppose the right to organize or the right to collectively bargain or even the right to strike (except where it is against the law - e.g., firemen). The fact that the right generally opposes closed shops, high minimum wages and the like is simply not the same as the basic rights.

Thus the charge of hypocrisy, without better parallel between societies, is rejected.

John Edwards Again, Walmart Again

Yes former Senator Edwards did appear at that book signing.

He defended the choice of Barnes and Noble over Walmart by citing total compensation (although he didn't use that term) because Barnes and Noble has a better health care plan (or so he says).

He also said that he is not anti Costco the same way he is anti Walmart because Costco employees have higher wages (he didn't refer to any Costco health care plan).

The followup article in the local paper in NH is:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?
headline=John+Edwards+in+NH+promoting+
book+on+homes&articleId=16df404b
-3e60-4537-89ab-80c4d9f0b011

John Edwards Again; Walmart Again

Tonight, former Senator Edwards is to sign his book in Manchester, NH. He is to do so at a Barnes and Noble. The Barnes and Noble is very near a Walmart. One purpose of the Barnes and Noble signing is to highlight Edwards's disapproval of Walmart. It turns out that, in Manchester, NH at least, the starting salary at Walmart is $7.50 (which is the rate Edwards thinks would be OK as a minimum wage), the starting salary at Barnes and Noble is $7.00.

I don't know the non salary compensation at the two employers (this is fairly difficult to find out and subject to calculational assumptions).

Notwithstanding this, what the information shows is not that Edwards is hypocritical ((he probably assumed that the Manchester, NH Walmart would have low starting wages) but that he is ignorant for local information. Data from the Manchester union leader (newspaper).

Background available at:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2006/11/edwardss_crusade.html

John Edwards, Walmart and the PlayStation3

Several articles have accused former Senator (of NC, a possible future candidate for President) John Edwards as a hypocrite. The story is that Edwards has been on the speakers circuit criticizing Walmart. However, this year, his son wanted a PlayStation3, and it was purchased at Walmart by a Edwards campaign aid.

A longer version of this is at:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116797.html
or
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061116/dath035.html?.v=68
or
http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4611.aspx
or
http://kevinb66.newsvine.com/_news/2006/11/17/445591
-former-senator-john-edwards-turns-to-wal-mart-for-playstation3


In the detailed version it is clear that Edwards did not tell the campaign aid to get the product at Walmart nor to specifically not get the product at Walmart. The aid simply was trying to please his boss. Edwards has also told the story that his son has criticized a classmate for shopping at Walmart. The fact is that the campaign aid is not the same person as Edwards (father or son) and so the Walmart purchase doesn't seem to me to be an example of hypocrisy.

However, Edwards criticism of Walmart is based on his contention that Walmart employees are underpaid (or that their medical coverage is undersubsidized).

Interestingly, the campaign aid is a volunteer - that is, he is paid nothing or close to nothing.

Ah. The hypocrisy is not with the product, its with the compensation.

In Edwards defense, virtually all political campaigns use volunteers and the volunteers sometimes obtain business or professional contacts that have a value far greater than what a $7/hr wage would have been. On the other hand, many, maybe most volunteer campaign aids end up with squat.

In Walmart's defense, no one forces people to work at Walmart and with a national unemployment rate below 5% for the past year or so, the total compensation package at Walmart (which also includes business and professional contacts as well as resume experience) must be fairly attractive since the company keeps increasing its work forces every year.

Bottom line - OK Edwards is a hypocrite but a minor one and not because of the PlayStation3.

Slate accuses U2 and Bono of hypocrisy

Slate is one of the most popular webzines. It's article on this subject is at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152580/?nav=tap3

The crux of the argument is that Bono has been a promoter of aid to the third world and now his band (U2) is relocating a part of their business (the most profitable part, the music publishing) from Ireland to the Netherlands to reduce their corporate tax liability.

The basis of the hypocrisy charge is never stated in the article, alas. However, as near as I can tell the charge is that Bono tells nations that they should provide more foreign aid and then reduces the ability of a nation to provide that aid.

Actually, Bono does other things than advocate foreign aid. He advocates reducing trade barriers that adversely affect third world nations. He also advocates debt forgiveness (which is mostly debt that third world nations owe banks). He also advocates requiring drug manufacturers to basically sell their products to third world nations at a loss.

These ideas may be naive, even conterproductive (btw, a lot of people think foreign aid to 3rd world countries has been a net minus to those countries because, for one thing, it allows dictators to buy more police to beat up dissidents) but they don't affect the hypocrisy argument.

Assuming the narrow charge of advocating foreign aid while diminishing the ability of one country (Ireland) to provide foreign aid, the charge of hypocrisy would be at least partly true. However, the country to which he moved his business (the Netherlands) would now be better able to provide the foreign aid. There would presumably a net loss which is why the narrow charge is partly true.

Senator Kerry and the 'botched joke'.

Two days ago, Senator Kerry was campaigning in California (in support of the Democrat candidate for Governor). He was addressing a University related audience. He made the statement,

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

(from a London Times article at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2432208,00.html
a youtube version of the speech is at:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENegT-spXg

His staff released the prepared text which was,

"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

As anti-Bush writer for Slate acknowledges, this 'joke' isn't funny even in its prepared text.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152456/?nav=fix

Kerry was accused of insulting American troops. Kerry at first refused to apologize, then apologized to anyone who 'misinterpreted' the joke.

this was the apology

“As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.“

A number of writers have suggested that Kerry meant to insult the troops basing their claim on Kerry's 1972 statements on a questionaire sent him by an antiwar group in which he opposes an all volunteer army because it would be predominently staffed by low income, black, uneducated, etc. (it hasn't turned out that way) and his statements in 1971 (made in testimony at a Congressional hearing) criticizing troops are being killers, rapers, etc.

Kerry's 1971 statements =

They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Kerry's 1972's statements =

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown,"

"We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities,.."

Kerry later stated (in 2004) that his 1971 statements were just repetition of what he had heard and that he never saw any atrocities being committed (although in 2006 he said he was proud of the statements and that they were true; indeed some atrocities were committed however many atrocities claimed to have been witnessed by the 'winter soldier' convention attendees were claims of people who had not been in combat or even in the armed forces).

He has never said anything about his 1972 statement.

Personally, I think we have a schizoid situation. One part of Senator Kerry surely realizes that the troops in Iraq are pretty well educated (virtually all HS educated and many with undergraduate and graduate degrees). However, another part of Kerry still clings to his 1972 theory; he has never acknowledged being wrong about the all volunteer army. It is still an talking point among antiwar speakers that blacks (or hispanics, or low income whites, etc.) are cannon fodder. So, a part of Kerry meant to insult the troops. However, that was not the part of him that apologized so I don't think its a good case of hypocrisy.

The non hypocrisy points here are actually more interesting.

1. Kerry badly botched a poorly written joke that was suppose to make fun of President Bush's lack of intellect. However, the botch job followed by the refusel to apologize followed by the apology seems to suggest that, at least in this case, it is Kerry who has a lack of intellect.

2. Kerry's behavior in this case is best explained by vanity rather than hypocrisy. He could have simply released the prepared remarks as soon as he was criticized and said, "I meant to say that." However, to do so would have been to admit that he didn't write his own jokes and furthermore couldn't recognize the joke was bad and worse yet, botched the joke his staff had written for him. If, as has been alledged, Kerry is incredibly vain, such admissions would have been very painful for him causing him to try to find other ways around this problem.

3. In the apology, Kerry uses the word 'troop' in a way that makes it hard to know what he means. He also uses the word 'imply' when I think he means 'infer'. He also can't legitimately claim to 'personally apologize'; he means, I think, 'collectively apologize'.

Senator Burns has a couplet.

From the website of Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT), in the second paragraph is this couplet:

"...With a seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Burns has been able to bring in over $2 billion in federal funds to the state since he took office. He has been a champion of a fiscally conservative government and a strong voice for lower taxes to create new businesses and more jobs."

It is nice that the first sentence seems to say, "Hey I'm great at pork barrel projects" and the second says, "Hey I'm fiscally responsible". It is not uncommon to have contradictions in a long narrative, but it is relatively uncommon to have a contradiction in consecutive sentences.

This would be obvious hypocrisy except that Senator Burns perhaps thinks that his pork barrel projects are actually good projects (I'm making the ordinary assuption that these port barrel projects are bad projects since the reason for such projects is that no county, municipality, state or private entity would fund them). This would take a remarkable feat of intentional ignorance or of intentional disregarding of evidence (I don't have a list of those projects: Senator Burns doesn't give them probably with good reason since the names alone would condemn the projects).

In sum, the alternatives are:
1. the MT pork barrel projects are actually good projects.
2. Senator Burns is a hypocrite (probably about a leve 3)
3. Senator Burns is intentionally ignorant about the projects he believes to be good.
4. Senator Burns intentionally is disregarding evidence about the projects.

Senator Burn's website (at least as of today) is at:
http://burns.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.BurnsBackground

More on former Representative Foley

Some people are saying that the Democrats are being hypocrites for criticizing the Republicans for not stopping Foley's page-seeking. Unfortunately for analysis, it is obvious that there is not a unified Democratic response to this. The charge is also made that when former Representative Studds (of Massachusetts) actually had an affair with a 17 year old male page (iin 83), it was covered up for 10 years and he only received a reprimand (rather than censure or being expelled). The point is somewhat valid however the people around in 83-93 are mostly not the same people around now and those who are may have changed their mind about what is, and isn't ethical.

To really get a read on what the Democrats are thinking would require someone in about the same position as Foley doing about the same thing as Foley about the same time.

The nearest thing to a Foley is the case of Representative Jefferson (of Louisiana) who has been charged with various crimes (bribery, extortion, etc.). His freezer was found to contain $90k in recently obtained cash. He still serves in the House but has had to resign from one of the House committees (Foley resigned his seat in the House completely).

Good Hypocrisy and Former Representative Mark Foley

Yesterday, Congressman Mark Foley resigned subsequent to press reports that he had sent pedophilic (I would write creepy pedophilic but I think that might be redundant) emails and IMs to male high schoolers and pages. It seems that Mark Foley has for some time been on the House Missing and Exploited Children's caucas and co-authored legislation some years ago to control virtual child pornography. An article from 2002 explains that the legislation was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to the dismay of then Congressman Foley.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/national/17CHIL.html?ex=1159934400&en=79b2c6a371c7fb10&ei=5070

Now lets suppose that Congressman Foley co-authored and supported legislation that would have made the emails and IMs he sent illegal (actually I don't think it did). Thus he would have been doing something he denounced, i.e., acted hypocritically.

However, it may be that Mr. Foley's role in the prohibition of virtual pornography was motivated by the self awareness that he was attracted by underage men (or boys). Actually, I think is probable. He thus was, in effect, trying to legislate in hopes of protecting society from himself. If so, this is not just a harmless hypocrisy but an actual good hypocrisy.

The Road to 9-11 vs. Farenheit 9-11: 2nd Post

Well, "The Road to 9-11" did show on TV. Some scenes were cut but some of the very scenes that Clinton Administration officials complained about were left in.

The movie disparaged both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration but more so the former as they were in office for 8 years and the Bush Administration was just getting started at the time of the 9-11 atrocities. No Bush Administration people complained.

The problem with analyzing hypocrisy here is that I'm not sure which former Clinton Administration people defended Farenheit 9-11 and which didn't. I suppose this could be a matter of research but I don't have time to do it.

Somepeople have said that the Democratic Party as a whole condemned "The Road..." but embraced "Farenheit...". While the latter of these may be reasonable, after all Michael Moore did get an honored seat at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I can find no evidence of the former.

Thus, not having time for the research, I'm going to have to pass on this issue.

However, the fact that a number of Democratic Senators threatened ABC with license suspension in the "The Road... " case is truly disgusting.

The Road to 9-11 vs. Farenheit 9-11

ABC is, as of today, scheduled to air a docudrama about the period leading up to the 9-11 atrocities. The docudrama uses various public reports as background as well as additional material. It compresses the timeline, merges characters, etc. much as other docudramas (e.g., the Great Escape). Numerous officials who served in the Clinton Administration (notably Madelaine Albright, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton himself), have either asked ABC to cancel the docudrama, change the docudrama, etc.

I don't remember anyone in the Democratic Party asking Michael Moore to cancel or change his docudrama (which self classified itself as a documentary) "Farenheit 9-11".

"The Road to 9-11" hasn't aired yet. I'll wait to pass judgement until then. As of now, it is still an open issue.

However, there are a few differences between the two events right off the bat.

Farenheit 9-11 was made by a company that did not use the federally regulated airwaves. Farenheit 9-11 did not have a disclaimer (indeed, it claimed to be a documentary). Michael Moore sat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention; however, Mr. Carter is not among the Democrats criticizing "The Road to 9-11".

Gunter Grass - social critic, novelist, Nobel Prize Winner (1999-Literature) ex- Waffen SS recruit

Gunter Grass has stated that he was drafted into the Waffen SS at the age of 17 (in 1944).

There is some doubt as to whether the Waffen SS actually drafted recruits and Grass is planning an autobiographic that may cast some additional light on this (Grass was captured by the 3rd infantry division and told them he was a member of a Panzer division).

The interesting thing here is to what extent, if any, Grass is a hypocrite given his social criticism (from a left wing position). Grass criticized all rightist policies in W. Germany (including the annexation of E. Germany). He avoided all criticism of the Soviet Union, E. Germany and the Stassi except as he compared them to the West (they were less bad in his opinion.

One of the amusing things Grass did was criticise former President Reagan for visiting the Bitburg cemetary and for implying that many German's served the Reich unwillingly.

Grass's current claim of being drafted into the Waffen SS seems to be ironic in this regard as is all his anti Western social criticism.

Assuming Grass is correct in this it is also a slam dunk piece of hypocrisy. We'll have to wait and see (we may never know) whether Grass's "I was drafted into the Waffen SS" is true.

As an interesting by-the-way, Salman Rushdie is defending Grass (who is evidently a friend of his see:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1852419,00.html
)

Star Jones vs Barb Walters: Qui es muy Hipócrita?

I saw a film clip of Ms. Walters last night saying, essentially, that Star Jones Reynolds (who was in fact fired from the View) should have left with dignity by finding another job and pretending to be moving up.

Here is an excerpt from People Magazine:

...she [Walters] felt "betrayed" by Reynolds's... "My [Reynolds] contract was not renewed for the tenth season...I feel like I was fired." Reynolds added that she got the news her contract wouldn't be renewed [about 90 days before the 'betray' comment]... Walters elaborated on the controversy: "We didn’t expect her to make this statement yesterday. She gave us no warning." Walters then went on to explain that Reynolds had known "for months" that she would not be returning in the fall, and that the network had given her time to exit the show with "dignity."... I[Walters said to her [Reynolds], "Handle this any way you want. You can say anything about a new job, you can say anything about a new road. Whatever you say, we'll back you up. We will never say that your contract was not renewed.'"

This is essentially Walters advising Ms Reynolds to be a hypocrite (or a liar) and being condescending about it at the same time.

Of course, Star is accusing Ms. Walters of hypocrisy but in truth Ms. Walters was sincere in advising Star to lie because Walters apparently believes that, in show biz, maybe elsewhere, lying is OK.

In short, this is a cat fight; not a hypocrisy fight (although Ms Walters makes me want to vomit).

Popsuger has a brief post on the Star vs Walters fight with a huge number of informed comments following it at: http://popsugar.com/8484

The People article is at: http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1208160,00.html?cid=recirc-top5-1-1208160

Pro-turtle, ecofriendly - self proclaimed hypocrite

A man named Michael Martino lives in Florida. He has a specialty license plate that reads "Helping Sea Turtles Survive". He has had two homes destroyed by hurricane (Ivan in 2004, Dennis in 2005). He supports sand dredging by the US Army Corps of Engineers to protect his home (and others) from another storm but it is mating season, or soon will be, for turtles.

The full article is at:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/26/State/Endangered_turtles_th.shtml

Actually, the USCOE takes a number of steps to avoid or minimize damage to turtles, but, of course can not guarantee a 'no-turtle-killed' outcome.

Mr. Martino may have another reason to not want to kill turtles. If a mating turtle is killed and the USCOE observes it, the USCOE will have to suspend the dredging.

From the article, I'm not sure what Mr. Martino's actual motivation is. However, the fact that he likes sea turtles and the fact he wants his home protected at some risk to sea turtles (although I think a rather minimal risk) are not inconsistent. He may simply like his home more than sea turtles.

If so, one may ask, why not have a bumper sticker that says, "I love my home."

The reason is that most people love their home. The message would be insipid.

I'm afraid I don't have nearly enough information to support Mr. Martino's claim to hypocrisy.

Radiohead's Thom Yorke: self proclaimed hypocrite

The band "Radiohead" has performed at some environmental events and one of its members, Thom Yorke, is an environmental activists.

In an article at:

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/yorke%20im%20an%20environmental%20hypocrite_1000208

Yorke proclaims himself a hypocrite, "...The whole apparatus of big festivals is not cool. If we could go to them and say, you can only use paper cups, you can't use generators, you have to use solar panels.... You technically can't make it happen. That stresses me out, because I am a hypocrite. As we all are."

I have a bit of a trouble understanding this because I'm not entirely sure what Mr. Yorke actually advocates. I'll assume for argument's sake that he advocates less consumption of fossil fuel. Assume also that Radiohead flys from venue to venue via corporate jet which renders him consuming fossi fuel at far greater than the normal per capita rate. If so, then he clearly is a hypocrite.

Oddly however, he think paper cups are environmentally benign. Apparently he doesn't understand that trees have to be cut down, processed, etc. and the cups transported to the venue. Thus, I would say his hypocrisy is mitigated somewhat by his ignorance and doesn't rise to a high harm.

Redefining Hypocrisy - What's that all about?

There was a opinion piece in a webzine, entitled, "Redefining HypocrisyReason No. 366 why people don’t take Congress seriously."

The URL for the opinion piece is at the bottom of this post.

In the piece, the author accuses Congress of being hypocritical with respect to the issue of the FBI search of the congressional office of U.S. Representative Jefferson (D-LA). This search took place about 9 months after a search of the home of Rep Jefferson resulted in the discovery of $90k in $100 bills wrapped in plastic and stored in the freezer (definitely cold cash). This was the first such search of a Congressional office in 100 years (probably longer).

The author (named Bryan Cunningham, who is a practising attorney in Colorado but who worked for the Clinton administration as assistant counsel to the CIA), has a pretty involved argument but it boils down to this:

1. Congress claims that the Executive Branch is preventing Congress from doing its job (i.e., violating the separation of powers doctrine) by having Rep Jefferson's office searched.

2. Congress is preventing the Executive Branch from doing its job by challenging the NSA monitoring of phone calls between US numbers and terrorist numbers overseas.

Thus hypocrisy.

The first part of the argument (#1 above) seems fairly solid.
The second part is quite a stretch. In fact, Congress (or at least some members) would certainly argue that their action re; the NSA searches is preventing the executive branch from doing thing that aren't its job. Now that arguement may be flawed, but it would seem it is none the less clearly believed by at least some in Congress.

Thus #2 is not certain and hypocrisy is not proved.

I'm not sure what the phrase 'redefined' means in the title.

source of article at:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU2NDdiNDk3NzQzYTc2NGQ4OTA3N2VkNGI0MGZiZjY=

Blogger hypocrisy in currency advertisements?

An amusing thing happened to one of the authors of the Powerline blog.

Their url is: http://powerlineblog.com/

In the information for May 16, 2006, one of the authors, John Hinderaker reports that he was critized by the authors of a blog called, Blogcritics, whose url is: http://blogcritics.org.

One post on blogcritics posts at: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/16/124639.php

has a paragraph saying

"...So the question remains, what are John Hinderaker and Co. doing pimping a currency scam [investing in Iraqi diner] on their website? I'm aware that blogads are automated to a degree, but the gentlemen at Power Line are ultimately responsible for what they're hawking "

Well actually, the blogads are almost completely automated. So automated that the same 'invest in Iraqi diner' ad that appeared on the powerline blog also appears in the blogcritics post which criticises the powerline blog. Powerline saved a screenshot on their May 16 post.

by the way, one of the 'invest in Iraqi diner' ads takes you to this url: http://www.safedinar.com/?campaign=google&source=google_CM&kw=iraq_dinar_exchange_rate


Now to the question, 'is this hypocrisy on the part of the blogcritics'?

Well the threshold question is whether the blogcritics poster was actually so ignorant that he didn't understand blogads. This seems improbable given the subtitle on the blogcritic home page says that it is:

A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, technology, and politics.

On the other hand, if the poster is that ignorant, the subtitle is the hypocritical piece.

So regarding hypocrisy; guilty as charged.

On the level of the hypocrisy, it must be considered as minimal because anyone ignorant of blogads gets educated pretty quickly. In fact, the blogcritics have, to an extent, already inflicted considerable damage on whatever credibility they had before the Iraqi diner incident.

Hillary is accused of Hypocrisy

The headline for a day of letters to the editor of the NY Post reads, "Clinton's Gen. Y Charge: Six Figure Hypocrisy

The article is at: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/68534.htm

I pretty sure the NY Post is interpreting the letter writers as accusing Hillary of hypocrisy. However, I'm not at all sure I know what the hypocrisy is. Two things are sure, Hillary said something at a college commencement speech about kids not willing to work hard or something like that. Another thing that is sure is that Chelsea works at a management firm and earns over $100k.

We don't know whether Chelsea works hard or not.

What I also don't know is what Chelsea has to do with 'kids not willing to work hard'. Chelsea isn't a kid - she is a grown up, almost 30.

Unfortunately, this is yet another case where I can't figure out what the hypocrisy is supposed to be, never mind analyzing it to see if it is true.

Tilting at Hypocrisy Windmills

It turns out that a lot of loudly pro environment Senators, etc. are against a windpower development at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801188.html

There is also the charge of hypocrisy being leveled against both U.S. Senators from Massachusetts (Kerry and Kennedy) since both Senators oppose the development.

Now, it may be that the reasons given for opposing the windpower development 8 miles off the Massachusetts coast are difficult to fathom (pun intended), for example the claim that it would hurt tourism to Nantucket. It may even be that Kerry and Kennedy don't believe their own claims (which would be hypocrisy).

However, neither Kerry nor Kennedy ever said, "I favor all windpower developments everywhere." Unless they have uttered a remark like this, the charge of hypocrisy merely for opposing the windpower development falls well short of being correct according to our definition.

Disturbing Picture raises Interesting Point

Today, there was an image of some Indonesians(presumably Muslims) burning an issue of Playboy magazine, while apparently staring at the centerfold. Scary yes but is it hypocrisy?

This may be another systematic class of exception to the general rule of "if you say to do something and don't want to do it yourself, then you are a hypocrite".

Images at:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/playboy-magazine-smash-in-indonesia.html

Incidentally, the images in the Indonesian version of Playboy were relatively tame (no nudity) and, in fact, less revealing than pictures widely available from Indonesian sources. Let's let that pass.

The question is are the people burning the issues of Playboy saying something that they don't believe or are they saying to do something they don't do.

Well certainly we can eliminate the second case because they are apparently saying, "burn Playboy" and they are actually burning Playboy.

The more interesting aspect is whether they secretly believe that Playboy should not be burned but are doing it anyway. If so, the normal answer would be that they are hypocrites but here maybe they are doing the burning under a type of religious coersion. If so, that is scary but probably should get a pass at being called hypocrisy.

Cher once sang a song, which, in the Chorus demonstrates a type of what might be called religious hypocrisy.

The song was called "Gypsies, Tramps and Fleas"

I was born in the wagon of a travelling show My momma used to dance for the money they'd throw Poppa would do whatever he could Preach a little gospel Sell a couple bottles of doctor good

Gypsies tramps and thieves
We'd hear it from the people of the town
They'd call us Gypsies tramps and thieves
But every night all the men would come around
And lay their money down

Picked up a boy just south of Mobile Gave him a ride filled him with a hot meal I was sixteen he was twenty one Rode with us to Memphis And poppa woulda shot him if he knew what he'd done

Gypsies tramps and thieves
We'd hear it from the people of the town
They'd call us Gypsies tramps and thieves
But every night all the men would come around
And lay their money down

Yip! Yahoo! She was born in the wagon of a travelling show Her momma had to dance for the money they'd throw Grandpa'd do whatever he could Preach a little gospel Sell a couple bottles of doctor good

Gypsies tramps and thieves
We'd hear it from the people of the town
They'd call us Gypsies tramps and thieves
But every night all the men would come around
And lay their money down

Chapter 63 of the Quran

Virtually every english translation of the Quran titles chapter 63 as "The Hypocrites".

This site gives about a half dozen translations: http://www.geocities.com/infoquran/

Here is one translation by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, 1930

----------------
THE HYPOCRITES, CHAPTER NO. 063In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.063.001 When the hypocrites come unto thee (O Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah's messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites indeed are speaking falsely.063.002 They make their faith a pretext so that they may turn (men) from the way of Allah. Verily evil is that which they are wont to do,063.003 That is because they believed, then disbelieved, therefore their hearts are sealed so that they understand not.063.004 And when thou seest them their figures please thee; and if they speak thou givest ear unto their speech. (They are) as though they were blocks of wood in striped cloaks. They deem every shout to be against them. They are the enemy, so beware of them. Allah confound them! How they are perverted!063.005 And when it is said unto them: Come! The messenger of Allah will ask forgiveness for you! they avert their faces and thou seest them turning away, disdainful.063.006 Whether thou ask forgiveness for them or ask not forgiveness for them is all one for them; Allah will not forgive them. Lo! Allah guideth not the evil-living folk.063.007 They it is who say: Spend not on behalf of those (who dwell) with Allah's messenger that they may disperse (and go away from you); when Allah's are the treasures of the heavens and the earth; but the hypocrites comprehend not.063.008 They say: Surely, if we return to Al-Madinah the mightier will soon drive out the weaker; when might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers; but the hypocrites know not.063.009 O ye who believe! Let not your wealth nor your children distract you from remembrance of Allah. Those who do so, they are the losers.063.010 And spend of that wherewith We have provided you before death cometh unto one of you and he saith: My Lord! If only thou wouldst reprieve me for a little while, then I would give alms and be among the righteous.063.011 But Allah reprieveth no soul when its term cometh, and Allah is Informed of what ye do.
-------------------------------

Let's ignore the theological problems here (e.g. that Allah only sometimes is informed in verse 11, or that Allah here says in verse 6 'this can't be forgiven' and says elsewhere [e.g. 4-110] that anything can be forgive or that Allah asked Allah to curse them in verse 4, etc.).

Instead let's try to figure out what Allah thinks is hypocrisy. It could be someone who once believed but now does not believe (as verse 3 says) or is could be someone who pretends to believe but does so in order to mislead other believers (as verse 2 says) but where such pretenders are all former believers who no longer believe or they could be people who tried to mislead Muhammad (as verse 1 says) who did so by pretending to believe but who also once believed and no longer do so.

Confused yet?

Like many other portions of the Quran, this section is the subject of extensive commentary and and this section supports many legal rulings.

However, let me summarize a few possibilities.

If the Quran is defining a hypocrite as someone who changes their mind, it is simply a bad definition.

If the Quran is defining a hypocrite as someone who pretends to believe in order to deceive, that would be a decent example of a hypocrite.

From the viewpoint of the Quran, someone trying to deceive Mohammad must have been hypocrisy on a six alarm level.

Political Fundraising Letters - Obvious Hypocrisy
Hillary's Letters - Obnoxious Hypocrisy

Senator Hillary Clinton has been fund raising. Almost every U.S. Senator does this. However, her fundraising is a particularly humorous example of non sensical alarmism.

DailyKos is not amused (I am). His commentary is at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/25/205749/182

DailyKos (aka Mr. Markos Moulitsas) points out that,

-----------------------------
"... the emails are full of alarmist crap like:

The 2006 elections are right around the corner, and the GOP is in full swing to throw everything they can at Hillary. And the worst thing we can do is sit on our hands [...]

Let's not kid ourselves, Hillary is in for a fight. Team Hillary Supporters will enable her to be prepared for whatever they throw at her.

Hillary is in a fight? For 2008, perhaps. But it's absolutely clear that the GOP is not throwing everything at her. In fact, their efforts to find a candidate to challenge Clinton border on pathetic.

Perhaps it's time for her to use some of that fundraising prowess to help out other Democrats? She's got $17 million and no real prospect of being seriously challenged.

If she wants to fundraise for 2008, all the power to her. But she could be honest about it. Pretending to raise this money for a non-existent Senate contest is simply obnoxious."

--------------------------

Since Senator Clinton surely realizes that what Kos says is correct and since the letter is obviously alarmist, this is definitely hypocrisy. Since it is surely unnecessary it is also at least level 2. However, the only deleterious effects, other than getting people to contribute to her who can't afford to do so, are minimal (e.g., annoyed left wingers), I don't see it getting to level 3.

Of course Senator Clinton is surely not the only politician who has ever done this. The example above however, is particularly egregious (and amusing to poke fun at).

Another hypocrisy accusation re: the Cartoons

This time it is Mansoor Ijaz, who writes frequently about being an American and a Muslim.

Here is a portion of a recent column:

----------------
"...The first truth is that most Muslim ideologues are hypocrites. What has Osama bin Laden done for the victims of the 2004 tsunami or the shattered families who lost everything in the Pakistani earthquake last year? He did not build one school, offer one loaf of bread or pay for one vaccination. And yet he, not the devout Muslim doctors from California and Iowa who repair broken limbs and lives in the snowy peaks of Kashmir, speaks the loudest for what Muslims allegedly stand for. He has succeeded in presenting himself as the defender of Islam's poor, and the Western media has taken his jihadist message all the way to the bank..."
----------------

I can't find the hypocrisy. In fact I can't even figure out who is being accused of being a hypocrite. Is it some Muslim ideologue that the author knows or some group of them. The author doesn't name them nor does he name their organization. Or is Osama bin Laden the hypocrite. If so, when did Osama say he was going to do something for the victims of the Pakistani earthquake? Mansoor is an articulate fellow and obviously he is disturbed by the cartoon riots and the other failures of the Islamic world. However, he has badly misused the word 'hypocrite'.

The column is viewable at: http://www.latimes.com/news/
opinion/commentary/la-oe-ijaz18feb18,0,6492979.
story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

A Hypocrisy Kerffufle Applebaum vs. captain ed

A number of blogging pages have been posted on a hypocrisy charge by Ann Applebaum.

This is discussed in detail at: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006307.php

The chronology is thus:

Feb 8 Ann Applebaum has column in the Washington Post. She discusses the cartoon hypocrisy. She charges the political left with certain hypocrisies. She charges the right wing blog community with hypocrisy with respect to the Newsweek 'flushed Koran' story; specifically that the RWBcommunity accused Newsweek of insufficient understanding of Moslem sensitivities.

Feb 8 (later in the day), Captain Ed writes that Anne didn't understand history and that the criticism of Newsweek was based on their inaccuracy and their inaccuracy based upon Newsweek's belief in the validity of the charges of terrorist suspects over the military spokespersons.

Feb 10 Anne replies that she was criticizing the RWBcommunity's "Newsweek lied, people died" meme.

Feb 11 Captain Ed writes that Anne didn't cite a single example of someone writing that and that if she had followed the debate at the time she would have realized that although some people may have said, "newsweek lied, people died", that this was an incidental meme and not the main meme.

Cartoon hypocrisy

Several papers, authors, bloggers, etc. have accused the moslem cartoon rioters of hypocrisy because they riot when Mohammad is depicted as a bad guy but are gleeful when Jews and Christians are so depicted.

A quote from a German newspaper is noted in this post:

http://www.natashatynes.org/newswire/2006/02/papers_across_e.html

The weight of evidence suggests that this is not hypocrisy at all. The moslem rioters do not feel that nasty depictions of Jews and Christians are wrong. The rioters clearly feel that Islam should not be criticized but other religions should be. Thus, I don't see the hypocrisy.

There are however two forms of hypocrisy that may be going on.

1. Some media are not publishing the 12 Danish cartoons and saying that they aren't publishing it because they are offensive even though they have published other offensive things. If the people in the media making the claim also know that they have published offensive things in the past, that is hypocrisy. If not, not (but in that case they should shortly find out the truth). Assuming this is hypocrisy it would rise to about the 3 level because when media intentionally use double standards it debases the public debate.

2. Some media say they are not publishing the cartoons because they consider the cartoons offensive when it seems the actual reason is that they are scared that they will be harmed by Islamic mobs. If this is so, it is hypocritical. In this case the hypocrisy would also be about level 3 because the problem of intimidation needs to be vetted.

The Great Google cave-in to the PRC- was it hypocrisy

Up until a month or so ago, Google's corporate slogan was "Don't be Evil." This corporate slogan has been withdrawn contemporaneously with Google's provision of a PRC compatible version that is blocked for certain search terms that the PRC doesn't like.

Here is an article on it:


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1138404334789&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

a section of this article is below:

----------------------------
Internet searches via the Chinese website to be established by Google will be censored by the company itself. They will, therefore, exclude results on such sensitive topics as democratic reform, Taiwanese independence and the banned Falun Gong movement.

-----------------------------

Google admits that this policy is inconsistent with its corporate ideals but defends its action by noting that Chinese will still be able to search millions of sites that they would otherwise not easily find. Although Google doesn't use this as a defense, the fact is that other search engines affiliated with MSN, Yahoo, etc. also allow a form of search censorship.

I actually find Google's defense somewhat reasonable. It seems to me that it is quite likely a Chinese iternet search might well find acticles on, say, Democracy or Falun Gong by slightly circuitous paths (in fact once they discover Wikipedia, the censorship becomes very difficult for the PRC govt.).

But the reasonableness of Google's defense isn't the question. Hypocrisy is. Here, again, however, if we look closely we find Google has changed its mind as witness its deletion of its old corporate slogan. That is to say, since they've changed their mind, they can't be accused of doing what they say not to do. In addition, the corporate slogan was "Don't do Evil" and they could reasonably say they haven't done evil, they've merely caved in to evil's request which is similar but not exactly the same thing.

BTW, I certainly don't approve of everything Google does and I suspect they do a lot of stuff I don't like but don't even know about.

Is the Hypocrisy in the Sunday Comics?

A letter to the editor:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701354.html

accuses the cartoonist Aaron McGruder of developing a rascist comic strip and accuses the Washington Post of hypocrisy in running it; at least I think that is what the letter writer says. Here is an excerp of the letter to the editor:
------------------
In the Dec. 28 "Boondocks," the grandfather compares black slaves to the title character in the remake of "King Kong": "A giant black jungle monkey put in chains, brought to America, and killed for lovin' a white woman!" Of course, we are supposed to laugh and chuckle, but I'd like to know how many letters of outrage The Post would get if word got out that a white supremacist had written the strip.
-------------------

Unfortunately for me I am not sure if the cartoonist is making fun of a fictional (black) character in his comic strip or making fun of the movie or what. Thus I can't tell if he is really being rascist or merely being ironic or being sarcastic.

As far as the Washington Post running the comic strip, they were, I think, faced with the same problem as I am. Thus I don't see how they can be called hypocrites for running the strip. Indeed, I think I have heard academics state their theory that the movie King Kong appeals to the white fear of black sexuality. My opinion of such theories is basically: Its a movie! Chill.

Bottom line: no opinion can be rendered on hypocrisy.

Slate author accuses Supreme Court Justice Scalia of Hypocrisy

Slate author William Saletan says that the priciples used by Scalia in abortion cases is at odds with the principles used by Scalia in a recent assisted suicide case.

The Slate post is a long one. I found it difficult to read. It is at: http://www.slate.com/id/2134452/?nav=tap3

As I understand it, the gist is that Scalia assets that Roe v Wade was wrongfully decided because abortion isn't in the constitution (a strict constructionist approach) and requires value judgement whereas his opinion in the recently decided Oregon assisted suicide case (Scalia was in the minority) takes an expansive view of a 1970s era federal law, requires a value judgement and would overturn a twice enacted State law (approved by voters in two referenda).

One problem with this thesis is that I think you can be a strict constructionist regarding the constitution while having a more expansive view of legislation passed by Congress. Similarly, one can have a strict constructionist viewpoint on what rights are and are not in the constitution while having a expansive view of how to construe phrases found in legislation passed by Congress.

I'm not familiar with the 1970s era law (Saletan says it was about recreational drugs) that was the basis for the Oregon SCOTUS decision and I don't want to read up on it, so I'm not going to be able to comment further on this.

Another Wrinkle or two in Type 1 Hypocrisies

Julian Silk has pointed out to me that, while most people do not mean "How are you?" when they say "How are you", some people do (e.g., in the case where the questioner already has some detailed knowledge of an ailment in the person being addressed). For this person (the questioner), the widespread practise of the "How are you" type 1 hypocrisy is actually somewhat annoying.

I would grant this, but since the vast majority of people use the phrase "How are you?" when they mean "Good to see you." and since the phrase "How are you?" is so embedded in culture, I consider the relatively small number of people discomforted to be unimportant. In fact, I would think the small number of people who want medical details would replace the "How are you?" greeting with something that more readily implies deeper inquiry, e.g., "How's your hernia today?", or "Still battling that nagging cold?".

Julian also notes that in the dating world, the proliferation of stock phrases to replace actual thought is annoying. For example, one person will say, after a date, "Can I see you again?" (lets ignore the logic and grammar problems with this) and the other person will say "Sure" even if that other person intends to always have another commitment whenever the first person has a date idea. Is this hypocrisy?

Obviously, it is hypocrisy to say "I like you." when one thinks "I don't like you."

However before judging the hypocrite you have to wonder how it came about that this hypocrisy became a dating template. Not being knowledgeable in this area my guess is that over time, people found the cost of triggering an incident by being brutally honest, although it occurred seldom, was too high to risk. If this is true, this hypocrisy, while being annoying to many is, nonetheless a type 1 hypocrisy.

Julian also points out that in rare conditions, e.g., when you are a doctor and you can diagnose a condition by listening to a verbal report of symptoms, it might be a good idea to ask for a better description of health than the standard, "doing OK" and it might be a good idea for the person being asked, "How are you?" to provide the verbal description of symptoms.

OK but that is a rare case indeed.

GPS for Child Molesters but not Murderers

My brother asked me if this was a case of hypocrisy and whether I approved of it. Apparently Florida has, since May 05, had a law requiring bracelet GPS for molesters (see - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p02s02-usju.html) Here is some of the story:

------------The state will require those released from prison to wear GPS bracelets for life.

By Richard Luscombe | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor [May 4 ,2005 edition]

MIAMI – When convicted sex offender John Couey fled to Georgia in February after allegedly kidnapping, raping, and killing nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford in northern Florida, it took authorities almost a month to track him down.

Mr. Couey, a pedophile with a long history of abusing children, was one of almost 60 sex offenders whose whereabouts were unknown to authorities in Citrus County after he failed to comply with the requirement to inform them of a new address. He simply disappeared from the state's logs....

Satellite tracking, using the Global Positioning System (GPS) originally developed for the military, is not a new tool in the fight against crime. Many states routinely use ankle bracelets and similar devices to keep tabs on parolees.

But Florida, which has about 30,000 registered sex offenders, is one of a growing number of states to embrace the technology to track their every move. A number of states already require some form of lifetime supervision of sex offenders, including GPS tracking.

But Florida is believed to be the first to mandate lifetime satellite monitoring for an entire group of people who commit a certain crime.

------------------------------------------------

My brother's point was if monitoring is a good idea for molesters (or sex offenders generally), why not for murderers.

First of all, I am astounded that Florida has 30,000 registered sex offenders (although its population is about 16,000,000 many of its citizens are retired non criminals - probably close to 2 million) .

Perhaps the reason to monitor sex offenders but not murderers is that, as the article implies, murderers are easier to reform. However, I doubt that is the reason. I suspect the real reason is that we want to believe that murderers will not be released. If that is the case, the hypocrisy is that we know murderers will be released but can't bring ourselves to admit it.

Furthermore, it is hard to believe there are more than a few dozen ex murderers in Florida and given the kind of sentences that murderers get, the ones released to society may be in their 60s or 70s by the time they get out.

Finally, there are plenty of car thieves, etc. who are released. Perhaps the reason not to place GPS bracelets on them is due to the thought that car theft and other crimes are thwarted by reasonable steps ordinary people can take while sex offenders look just like normal people and easily entrap new victims who are vulnerable simply by being friendly to someone who is friendly to them.

Of course, I'm speculating on all this. It may be simply that sex offense crimes are 'icky' and the public outrage (certainly in the case of Florida) made the legislature pass a law and made the governor sign it.

If the 'outrage' was the only operative fact, then that would have been hypocrisy assuming the legislature, governor, didn't convince themselves otherwise.

Some Hypocrisy that I favor

My friend Julian Silk asked me today if I really favor hypocrisy (beyond the highly technical hypocrisy that I noted back in August 2003 about the worker trying to get a new spec approved by an egomaniac boss who developed the current spec).

Here are some other hypocrisies I favor.

1. When a person says "How are you?", they are being hypocrites because they really aren't interested in your blood pressure, white cell count, respiration rate, etc. They are just being friendly. In fact the term "How are you?" means something like, "glad to see you". I don't mind this hypocrisy. Its what I would term type 1 (see the Aug 2003 typology).

2. A person gives lots of $ to a charity or Univ and who says something like "I'm not doing this to make myself liked or to get into heaven but I'm doing it for the greater good." This statement sometimes is immediately followed by information that the]] charity is naming a program for the giver or the University is naming a building. OK the giver is a hypocrite but if the charity is a good one or the University does good things, the hypocrisy is essentially a cost of doing business and so minor compared to the action that it is unimportant. In fact, in some cases, I would advocate the hypocrisy if it is a way to get the money to a worthwhile charity.

3. Say a State legislator sees a problem that can't be addressed except by a bill that is unconstitutional. Say that he believe passing a law that will be quickly overturned by the courts will nevertheless be a good thing. The legislature is to vote. He pretends to think the bill is constitutional because admitting it is unconstitutional is too hard to explain to constituents. I can't blame the guy for being a hypocrit in this case. By the way, I can't think of a case that goes with this set of hypotheticals but that's mostly because I can't see into the mind of the legislators.