Edwards - Again and another Sexual Immorality Case
Former Senator Edwards is reported to have said that the US should fight global warming by people giving up SUV's (I don't have a direct quote - the news reports have a paraphrase). Back on Feb 2, 2007, I examined the case of the 28,000 square foot house recently constructed for John Edwards (it sits on a 100+ acre estate). That was in connection with the fact that the Edwards campaign was based on rallying the poor against their rich exploiters. This is sufficiently similar that I'll not examine it again.
Also, back on Aug 20, I looked again at the case of a family-values politico who was accused of sexual immorality. A similar charge (and guilty plea) has occurred against another family values politico, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). Again, this is sufficiently similar that I'll not examine it in depth. I will say that conservative columnist Ann Coulter (whose work I generally do not read), did make this issue the subject of a column. I found her analysis on this basically sound although it is a bit difficult to get to the analysis because it is surrounded by polemic (which I suppose is what draws readers). She commented, "Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."
The cop's report of the Lewd (or disorderly) conduct charge against Senator Craig is at:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html
The report of the SUV comment is at:
http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.nc/22b7034c-www.wlos.com.shtml
and a nice picture of the Edwards estate with several SUVs parked in one of the 4 parking areas on the estate at:
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u128/sapguy_us/EdwardsHome.jpg
The Coulter column is at: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi and is dated Sept 5, 2007 and titled, "Cruising While Republican".
Monday, August 20, 2007
Parsing Hypocrisy on Sexual Immorality
Steve Landsburg, an economic professor, writing at Slate.com (an online journal now owned by the Washington Post but once owned by Microsoft) has an post with the title "Parsing Hypocrisy".
He has started down approximately the same path as this blog with an attempt to clearly define hypocrisy. The twist in his definition is that it is down from an economics viewpoint.
He takes the case of a Florida legislator who was caught doing something illegal and sexually immoral. This same legislator sponsored legislation making it easier to convict people of lewd and lascivious behaviour.
Professor Landsburg, has (as have I) considerable trouble determining whether or not this is hypocrisy because he isn't sure of the motive of the individual.
Landsburg's blog is:
http://www.slate.com/id/2172282/fr/flyout
For what it is worth, I have covered this approximate issue before (in Oct 2006 with respect to former US representative Mark Foley). In that case I made the point that perhaps Foley (who verbally solicited homoerotic activity with pages while coauthoring legislation to expand the criminalization of child pornography) was acting from the knowledge that he himself was enticed by homoeroticism and wanted to help others resist the temptation.
Post Script
On Aug 21, I wrote to Dr. Landsburg telling him I was commenting on his article on this blog and telling him about the Oct 2006 post regarding US Rep Foley.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:11:44 -0400 (EDT)
I received this message.
"Steven E. Landsburg"
Steve Landsburg, an economic professor, writing at Slate.com (an online journal now owned by the Washington Post but once owned by Microsoft) has an post with the title "Parsing Hypocrisy".
He has started down approximately the same path as this blog with an attempt to clearly define hypocrisy. The twist in his definition is that it is down from an economics viewpoint.
He takes the case of a Florida legislator who was caught doing something illegal and sexually immoral. This same legislator sponsored legislation making it easier to convict people of lewd and lascivious behaviour.
Professor Landsburg, has (as have I) considerable trouble determining whether or not this is hypocrisy because he isn't sure of the motive of the individual.
Landsburg's blog is:
http://www.slate.com/id/2172282/fr/flyout
For what it is worth, I have covered this approximate issue before (in Oct 2006 with respect to former US representative Mark Foley). In that case I made the point that perhaps Foley (who verbally solicited homoerotic activity with pages while coauthoring legislation to expand the criminalization of child pornography) was acting from the knowledge that he himself was enticed by homoeroticism and wanted to help others resist the temptation.
Post Script
On Aug 21, I wrote to Dr. Landsburg telling him I was commenting on his article on this blog and telling him about the Oct 2006 post regarding US Rep Foley.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:11:44 -0400 (EDT)
I received this message.
"Steven E. Landsburg"
Thanks for sharing your blog post on hypocrisy. You make a good
point, and you make it well.
SL
Thursday, August 09, 2007
More From Laurie David (Greenhouse Gas Hypocrisy)
I discussed this a bit on April 23.
At that time, I was not entirely sure whether Laurie David (or Sheryl Crow) believed in carbon offsets as a legitimate way of compensating for egregious consumption of energy intensive products and services, most egregiously of all the private jet travel (obviously the resulting carbon dioxide is substantial).
Apparently, the Guardian did an article on Laurie David (dated in the fall of 2006 but seeming to begin in 2004 - I can't figure out the date of any actual interviews - although the article seems based on an interview or maybe several interviews).
In this Guardian article (which is sympathetic to Ms David), she doesn't mention purchasing offsets. Instead at one point in the interview,
"...She has been dubbed a Gulfstream liberal for flying occasionally in a private jet, and castigated for her second home on Martha's Vineyard. "It's so easy to marginalise people," she says in self-defence. "Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year, and I feel horribly guilty about it. I probably shouldn't do it. But the truth is, I'm not perfect. This is not about perfection. I don't expect anybody else to be perfect either. That's what hurts the environmental movement - holding people to a standard they cannot meet. That just pushes people away.""
So apparently whether or not she buys offsets, she has some feeling that the offset is not adequate compensation for the carbon dioxide emissions of her private jet (or 2nd home or the extra emissions because her first home is so gigantic).
Instead, she defends (I'm not entirely sure she means this as a defense - clearly the author of the Guardian article considers it so) herself by saying people shouldn't expect her to be perfect. That would seem to be reasonable except I don't think people expect that at all. I assume that at least some people simply expect her to reduce her emissions to, say, only about 4 or 5 times the average for Americans instead of the 50-100 times they are now (I don't have an audit, I'm guessing here).
Anyway the Guardian article is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/18/weekendmagazine.usnews
I discussed this a bit on April 23.
At that time, I was not entirely sure whether Laurie David (or Sheryl Crow) believed in carbon offsets as a legitimate way of compensating for egregious consumption of energy intensive products and services, most egregiously of all the private jet travel (obviously the resulting carbon dioxide is substantial).
Apparently, the Guardian did an article on Laurie David (dated in the fall of 2006 but seeming to begin in 2004 - I can't figure out the date of any actual interviews - although the article seems based on an interview or maybe several interviews).
In this Guardian article (which is sympathetic to Ms David), she doesn't mention purchasing offsets. Instead at one point in the interview,
"...She has been dubbed a Gulfstream liberal for flying occasionally in a private jet, and castigated for her second home on Martha's Vineyard. "It's so easy to marginalise people," she says in self-defence. "Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year, and I feel horribly guilty about it. I probably shouldn't do it. But the truth is, I'm not perfect. This is not about perfection. I don't expect anybody else to be perfect either. That's what hurts the environmental movement - holding people to a standard they cannot meet. That just pushes people away.""
So apparently whether or not she buys offsets, she has some feeling that the offset is not adequate compensation for the carbon dioxide emissions of her private jet (or 2nd home or the extra emissions because her first home is so gigantic).
Instead, she defends (I'm not entirely sure she means this as a defense - clearly the author of the Guardian article considers it so) herself by saying people shouldn't expect her to be perfect. That would seem to be reasonable except I don't think people expect that at all. I assume that at least some people simply expect her to reduce her emissions to, say, only about 4 or 5 times the average for Americans instead of the 50-100 times they are now (I don't have an audit, I'm guessing here).
Anyway the Guardian article is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/18/weekendmagazine.usnews
Sunday, August 05, 2007
John Edwards and the money from Murdoch
Roger Simon, a very popular blogger, calls former Senator Edwards a Hypocritonissimo. He does this because, in edition to the large house issue (see Feb 2007 post on this site), Edwards has been critical of other candidates for accepting campaign donations from Rupper Murdoch while himself taking funds from Murdoch as part of a book publishing deal.
The Roger Simon link is:
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/08/hypocritonissim.php
and the story Roger Simon was commenting on was from a NY Post story in which Edwards states that part of the funds (reimbursement for expenses) he took from Murdoch ($300k) were provided to charity (although declining to provide records to back the assertion). Edwards does not claim that the $800k he received for royalties was provided to charities. In contrast to this, Edwards criticized Senator Clinton for receiving $20k in campaign contributions.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm
Senator Edwards also claimed (a few weeks ago) that he accepted a job (about $800k as a rainmaker) with a Hedge Fund to learn more about poverty.
As I noted before, I have a difficult time commenting on this because Sen Edwards makes my flesh crawl.
I will say I don't know why Simon should say that whatever hypocrisy Edwards is guilty of is dangerous. People have been using the poverty issue for their own ego feeding or for scams for many years.
Roger Simon, a very popular blogger, calls former Senator Edwards a Hypocritonissimo. He does this because, in edition to the large house issue (see Feb 2007 post on this site), Edwards has been critical of other candidates for accepting campaign donations from Rupper Murdoch while himself taking funds from Murdoch as part of a book publishing deal.
The Roger Simon link is:
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/08/hypocritonissim.php
and the story Roger Simon was commenting on was from a NY Post story in which Edwards states that part of the funds (reimbursement for expenses) he took from Murdoch ($300k) were provided to charity (although declining to provide records to back the assertion). Edwards does not claim that the $800k he received for royalties was provided to charities. In contrast to this, Edwards criticized Senator Clinton for receiving $20k in campaign contributions.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm
Senator Edwards also claimed (a few weeks ago) that he accepted a job (about $800k as a rainmaker) with a Hedge Fund to learn more about poverty.
As I noted before, I have a difficult time commenting on this because Sen Edwards makes my flesh crawl.
I will say I don't know why Simon should say that whatever hypocrisy Edwards is guilty of is dangerous. People have been using the poverty issue for their own ego feeding or for scams for many years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)