Senator Vitter, Larry Flynt and Madame Palfrey
Rick Moran, a sometimes columnist (he lives in Illinois, has written a good bit and is generally identified with Republicans), has an essay online entitled, "hypocrisy all around".
It is about the facts concerning a escort/prostitution business operated by Madame Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
Relevant undisputed facts:
Palfrey admits that some of her 30 or so employees (all women, one a college professor) engaged in sex for money (it is unknown which women did sex for money and which did not)
One of the clients of the business was Senator David Vitter (R- LA). Senator Vitter has acknowledged wrongdoing (but not criminal wrongdoing) and confessed to his wife and God. Senator Vitter is an advocate of family values, an opponent of homosexual marriate and an opponent of sex before marriage (presumably also a opponent of sex outside of marriage).
Larry Flynt, editor of Hustler (a magazine which not only has nudity but pictures violent, S&M and B&D sexual acts) has offered money to people willing to expose politicians and has said he will expose appropriate individuals (since Mr. Flynt is known to be a partisen Democrat), people assume he will expose only Republicans).
So Senator Vitter has done something he has told others not to do. Does this make him a hypocrite? My answer is Yes (although there is a contrarian view of hypocrisy that says that this is only a case of personel weakness). Assuming it is hypocrisy is it a big deal. I would say, No (I assume the sex here is consentual). Senator Vitter is away from home a great deal and, no doubt, has desires typical of someone his age and health.
Is Larry Flynt a hypocrite (for exposing people he disagrees with for doing things he doesn't disagree with)? This is pretty complex but I think Flynt here is not specifically saying Vitter shouldn't have sex outside of marriage (or thinking it). Flynt's actions are sleazy and disgusting but not, as I understand the term, hypocritical (although Moran thinks so).
Moran's article is at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/hypocrisy_all_around.php
I, Martin Weiss, think that hypocrisy is sometimes necessary to get through the day, sometimes dangerous and sometimes in between. I have also found that there are special cases where what should be or seems to be hypocrisy isn't. If I had a dime for every... that why its called "Incorporated".
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Rock Groups accuses earth-aid Rock concert of Hypocrisy
The Rock Group "Arctic Monkeys" stepped into the Global Warming debate, with among other things the following:
"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.
"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.
Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"
As it turns out, the organizers of the Earth-Aid concert are going to buy carbon offsets after calculating their carbon footprint.
All this and more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705025637.vyh5u7g0&show_article=1
The Rock Group "Arctic Monkeys" stepped into the Global Warming debate, with among other things the following:
"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.
"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.
Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"
As it turns out, the organizers of the Earth-Aid concert are going to buy carbon offsets after calculating their carbon footprint.
All this and more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705025637.vyh5u7g0&show_article=1
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Hillary on the Libby Sentence Commutation
Senator Hillary Clinton issued this statement from her official "Hillary for President" website:
7/2/2007
Statement of Hillary Clinton on Libby Commutation
Senator Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:
"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
This website is:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2271
This statement brings up the issue of what Hillary said when her Husband was issuing pardons.
There were a lot of pardons (a pardon is a stronger measure than a commutation of sentence).
The official list of pardons is on the US Dept of Justice Website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
Here is what Marc Rich was pardoned for (in 2001 just before leaving office):
Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
and here is what the Gregories (husband and wife members of the Puerto Rican Terrorist group FALN - there were others in the group) were pardoned for (march 15, 2000):
Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, etc.
Hillary did not denounce most of her husband's pardons (in fact at the time there was suspicion that these pardons were a form of vote buying since the Puerto Rican vote is substantial in NY and Hillary was running for Senate in NY at the time. She did, specifically endorse the FALN pardons, although the NYTimes (and others, including some who are criticizing the Libby commutation) defended these pardons at the time see:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DD143DF93AA3575AC0A96F958260
So let's run through the possibilities:
1 - Hillary didn't have an opinion of the Clinton Pardons, does now but isnt' saying
2 - Hillary favored the Clinton Pardons (at least the FALN ones, even if she says now she didn't and even if at the time she issued mealy mouth comments on those pardons) and still does but isn't saying
3 - Hillary was against the Clinton Pardons but didn't say so then
4 - Hillary was for the Clinton Pardons but isn't anymore
So many posibilities.
I personally think #2 is correct and if so, she is guilty of hypocrisy in that she thinks political pardons are OK but says otherwise (unless you posit that political pardons of Puerto Rican terrorists is OK but commuting the sentence of Republican perjurers isn't - an interesting argument would have to be made). One could hope some reporter will ask the appropriate hard questions but probably Hillary won't allow such questions so we will never know - alas since I personally think it is important to know whether a Presidential candidate thinks the FALN pardons are OK.
This same argument could be made in much less stark form for Sen Edwards and Sen Obama. Edwards was elected Senator from NC in 1994 so he was new to the job during the Clinton pardons. Obama was just a State Senator in 2000 and wasn't elected to the US Senate until 2004.
Senator Hillary Clinton issued this statement from her official "Hillary for President" website:
7/2/2007
Statement of Hillary Clinton on Libby Commutation
Senator Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:
"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
This website is:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2271
This statement brings up the issue of what Hillary said when her Husband was issuing pardons.
There were a lot of pardons (a pardon is a stronger measure than a commutation of sentence).
The official list of pardons is on the US Dept of Justice Website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
Here is what Marc Rich was pardoned for (in 2001 just before leaving office):
Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
and here is what the Gregories (husband and wife members of the Puerto Rican Terrorist group FALN - there were others in the group) were pardoned for (march 15, 2000):
Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, etc.
Hillary did not denounce most of her husband's pardons (in fact at the time there was suspicion that these pardons were a form of vote buying since the Puerto Rican vote is substantial in NY and Hillary was running for Senate in NY at the time. She did, specifically endorse the FALN pardons, although the NYTimes (and others, including some who are criticizing the Libby commutation) defended these pardons at the time see:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DD143DF93AA3575AC0A96F958260
So let's run through the possibilities:
1 - Hillary didn't have an opinion of the Clinton Pardons, does now but isnt' saying
2 - Hillary favored the Clinton Pardons (at least the FALN ones, even if she says now she didn't and even if at the time she issued mealy mouth comments on those pardons) and still does but isn't saying
3 - Hillary was against the Clinton Pardons but didn't say so then
4 - Hillary was for the Clinton Pardons but isn't anymore
So many posibilities.
I personally think #2 is correct and if so, she is guilty of hypocrisy in that she thinks political pardons are OK but says otherwise (unless you posit that political pardons of Puerto Rican terrorists is OK but commuting the sentence of Republican perjurers isn't - an interesting argument would have to be made). One could hope some reporter will ask the appropriate hard questions but probably Hillary won't allow such questions so we will never know - alas since I personally think it is important to know whether a Presidential candidate thinks the FALN pardons are OK.
This same argument could be made in much less stark form for Sen Edwards and Sen Obama. Edwards was elected Senator from NC in 1994 so he was new to the job during the Clinton pardons. Obama was just a State Senator in 2000 and wasn't elected to the US Senate until 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)