NASA and the
New Life Form

A few days ago there was an announcement of a "new life" form here on earth. It was an article on the web site of the journal Science. Some of the authors were employees of NASA.

It was a bacterium that uses arsenic in place of phosphate and it was discovered in Mono Lake.

NASA then had a press conference.

After a while, people began noticing flaws in the research method, flaws in the analysis, etc. and that the whole announcement was hyped, in that the bacterium evolved from old life forms and isn't that much different.

At this point NASA decided all questions about the "new life" form should be handled in writing through the review process.

A SLATE article states that if NASA were willing to have a press conference on this then they should let the authors answer questions directly, in public. If not, they are being hypocritical.

I'll say that NASA looks bad here. They made a mistake in the announcement and they should admit it (and the NASA officials who were behind the PA announcement should be disciplined). Yes, if they don't do that they are a little bit hypocritical (only one PA announcement).

Notwithstanding this, the number of questions is a lot and handling it all in public would be difficult so I sympathize with NASA here (even though NASA is responsible for the mess).

The NYTimes
and the Wikileaks

The NY Times famously refused to publish the leaked emails from Britain (University of E Anglia) regarding climate research. The overall situation was called climategate by some.

The NY Times did publish many of the Wikileaks of diplomatic cables and before that published details of military reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The NY Times reacting to charges of hypocrisy has a defense of itself here.

Although wordy and containing many tangential issues that I don't understand completely, the NY Times says that they covered the climategate story in their news department and thus gave it the prominence it deserved. That would be a fair defense if the NY Times said that it didn't publish actual emails in the climategate case because, say, it didn't understand the scientific terminology but it did publish in the wikileak case because it did understand all the terminology but that was not asserted.

The problem for the NY Times is that by covering one issue in news reports and in the other giving actual data, it is implying something different about the two. However, I don't see what that difference is and why the difference matters. For example, in both cases, the emails or cables were supposed to be secret (actually the diplomatic cables would have a formal SECRET clearance and the E Anglia emails would not). For another, in both cases, the actual emails or cables will be available somewhere else. Still another, in both cases the emails or diplomatic cables were not meant to be revealed.

One important difference that has been pointed out is that revealing the diplomatic cables embarrass the US while revealing the E Anglia emails only embarrass some climatologists who believe that catastrophic or dangerous global warming is happening and is human caused (these are caused 'warmists' sometimes by their opponents). If this is the case, then the NY Times is guilty of hypocrisy but of a minimal kind since the information is elsewhere revealed.

The NY Times defense of itself does contain a fascinating detail about the Climategate incident. In that case some of the emails were from climate researchers to the NY Times. These emails might have, to some, made the NY Times look like dupes to the warmists.

Rashi Didn't Like Hypocrisy

This week, the parsha is Vayesheiv.

Near the beginning of the parsha is the narrative about the conflict between Joseph and his brothers.

The end of sentence 4 of chapter 37 says that Joseph's brothers were so angry (because of Joseph's attitude, talebearing, etc.) that they couldn't speak to him peacefully.

Rashi comments on this wasthat the brethren should be praised for not speaking one thing while thinking another in their heart. The super-commentary on Rashi was, "praise for the brothers who were not hypocrites"

Is Representative- Elect Andy Harris a Hypocrite?

My brother Irwin asked what I thought of this fellow's recent statements on health care.

I had never heard of him. I looked him up and found that, for one thing, images of him were relatively rare (that makes me like him). BTW, the image is what was on his website. Oddly, it doesn't cut and paste well.

A number of news organizations had reported his surprise at learning that his medical insurance as a Congressman takes a month after being sworn in to be effective. He had campaigned against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka PPACA, Obamacare). Is this a case of hypocrisy.

From the Harris campaign site, here is Harris's position on health care,

"Improving our nation's health care system is a priority for all American families. As a physician, I know that our health insurance system is in need of repair. However, the answer to the ever-rising cost of insurance is not the expansion of government-run or government-mandated insurance but, instead, common-sense market based solutions that ensure decisions are made by patients and their doctors. Reform should focus on reducing costs and maintaining quality while preserving individual rights. I support increased competition, price transparency, tax credits and expanded medical savings accounts, and meaningful medical malpractice liability reform. "

here are some words from the Baltimore Sun about Harris,

During a briefing Monday on employee benefits for new congressmen, staff aides and family members, Harris wanted to know why he would have to wait a month for his new health insurance coverage to start.

"This is the only employer I've ever worked for where you don't get coverage the first day you are employed," Harris said, according to his spokeswoman, Anna Nix. She was quoted by Politico, the Capitol Hill newspaper that broke the story.

What helped make the exchange irresistible for Washington reporters was Harris's background as a physician, his recent arrival on the scene and his strong opposition to the new health care law, which he'd like to see repealed. In fact, the new law really had little to do with the episode, which Harris presumably hopes will blow over before more people start paying attention.

Well, to me this shows Harris is quite ignorant on one of the details of the subject of health care insurance. As it turns out, many health care policies provided by employers take a while to take effect (the government's one month time period is typical). This should be expected by nearly anyone given that it takes time to process records. However, Harris, who had only worked for medical groups, hospitals, etc. which gave super fast service to doctors employed by them, was uniformed on this. In addition he seemed to take umbrage at the facts thus showing a certain arrogance. One could also say that his failure to understand the problems of processing records shows a lack of common sense (notwithstanding his campaign slogan).

All in all, ignorance and arrogance are not nice qualities. However, they are not hypocrisy.

I can't find anywhere in Harris's campaign documents where he says, "Government insurance should not be given on the first day of employment..." or "No body should get insurance the first day they work.." or words to that effect.

Baltimore Sun article here.

Columbia Journal article here

Politico article here

Harris position on health care is here.

UPDATE: As of the day after the earlier articles, the Democrats are still calling Harris a hypocrite and Harris is unable to respond. Perhaps the "no I'm not a hypocrite, I was simply uniformed and obnoxious" defense isn't a good one.

Is Jesse Jackson a Hypocrite?

An article in the Detroit News calls him that.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson was driving an SUV (and Escalade - Its made by Cadillac) to a Detroit event promoting "Green Jobs".

Here is what the Detroit News said,

"Add Jesse to the Al Gore-Tom Friedman-Barack Obama School of Environmental Hypocrisy. While preaching to Americans that they need to cram their families into hybrid Priuses to go shopping for compact fluorescent light bulbs to save the planet, they themselves continue to live large."

[If I recall correctly, Tom Friedman preaches energy conservation and has a huge, huge house in Washington, D.C. President Obama preaches energy conservation and had the thermostat in the White House turned up to the high 70s in the 2008-2009 winter]

By the way, the Detroit News only knows this because Jackson's SUV was stolen and stripped during his visit to Detroit.

The article contends that Jackson favored government mpg mandates but provides no link to any speech, statement or policy announcement where Jackson could be said to 'favor' such a mandate. However, let's assume the article is correct. Let's also assume Jackson favors policies that provide incentives to owning hybrids and incentives to using compact fluorescent tubes. Would Jackson then be a hypocrite?

Well here is something to ponder. Some of the Escalades are hybrids. We don't now whether Jackson's SUV was one of them. We also don't know whether Jackson has CFLs at home or in his office.

Let's go even one more step. Assume Jackson's Escalade was not a hybrid. Assume Jackson uses no CFLs and has only incandescent bulbs which are on even when he isn't in. Does that make him a hypocrite.

Not necessarily.

Jackson could have said, "yes provide energy saving or 'green' incentives" and favor more "green jobs" and still be an energy hog because he never said, "political leaders should drive hybrids and use CFLs". Indeed, Jackson might say that he uses an non hybrid and wastes electricity because the incentives aren't high enough.

All this is not to say I like Jackson. Actually I find him repulsive. But in this case I don't think he is a hypocrite, at least not in the sense the Detroit News makes him out to be.

The WaPost Editors Declare Obama Hypocritical

Someone in the Obama Administration made a job offer of some kind to US Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA). The offer was, apparently, intended to dissuade Sestak from running against US Senator Specter (D-PA but until early 2010 R-PA) in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Primary. We don't currently know how, who, why, where or when the job offer to Representative Joe Sestak was made.

The White House has done an internal investigation and determined that they (the White House) hasn't done anything criminal and in fact has not done anything inappropriate.

The Editors of the Washington Post say, "the White House position that everyone should just trust it and go away is unacceptable from any administration; it is especially hypocritical coming from this one. "

The Washington Post editors apparently think the Obama promises of 'Sunshine' make this statement hypocritical but don't quote any promise, any policy, any statement that Obama has actually made.

The was a speech by President Obama contemporaneous with several executive orders (on compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), executive agency pay, hiring lobbyists) made early in the Obama Administration. It may be this that the Washington Post is thinking about when they make their accusation of hypocrisy. However, if the job offer was made by phone, there is simply no way a FOIA could discover it.

Anyway, although the Obama administration's offer to Rep Sestak may be sleezy (and I agree that the Obama administration should come clean on this), there is simply not enough evidence to declare the non provision of information hypocritical in this case.


The Washington Post statement is here.
Report on the January 22, 2009 speech by Obama is here.

Al Gore's New House

Former VP Al Gore purchased a house recently along the Pacific Coast.

It is reported to be the 4th house that he owns. The image shows a house that recently sold for the amount reported to be the Gore price and is in the same area. The area is Montecito, California.

The climate is pretty mild along the coast so the heating and cooling may not be as high as the other three Gore residences. However, according to the LA Times report (which is taken from a local Montecito publication), the house has five bedrooms, six fireplaces and nice bathrooms (also several fountains and a swimming pool).

What about the charges of hypocrisy?

It seems to me that Al Gore believes in the theory that purchasing carbon offsets is a valid way to compensate for this kind of consumption. Even if that theory is laughable, even if the carbon offset market is full of fraud, even if Gore himself profits from the carbon offset market, this belief (even if it is a belief willingly blind to facts), makes him a non-hypocrite (although one might consider him loathsome).

Personally, I wonder why one would have more fireplaces than bedrooms and almost twice the bathrooms as bedrooms but that is beside the point.


Images from this post.
LA Times report on the house is here.

Gordon Brown and the Open Microphone

Several people have referred to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown as a hypocrite.

One of those also calls him the "worst sort of hypocrite".

What happened recently is that Brown was speaking with a woman who questioned him about immigration (the woman thought too many east Europeans were being allowed to immigrate to Britain). Brown was nice to her in person but when he got into his limo, Brown called the woman a bigot and, unbeknown to him, the microphone he was carrying picked up his denunciation of her.

Being nice to someone to their face and criticizing them to their back isn't very nice and could be called two faced but it is not hypocrisy. However, some people make a different accusation. They say that Brown has been working to restrict immigration for a decade and thus when he calls someone else a bigot for wanting to restrict immigration, that is hypocrisy. Actually it is not. Prime Minister Brown may believe himself to be a bigot (granted this is unlikely) or he may believe some restrictions are good but restrictions that go too far are bigotry (which is way too nuanced for my taste but may be true nonetheless).

Verdict: Not a hypocrite.


One site calling him a hypocrite is here. Another is here. Another here. Still another here (although that was for something that happened in 2008).

Gisele Bundchen
and
the mansion

There are numerous other people who have been called environmental hypocrites. That is, people who preach low carbon consumption and practice high carbon consumption.

Few are as good looking as Gisele Bundchen.

Ms. Bundchen is the celebrity Environmental Ambassador at large at the United Nations.

Her and her husband (Tom Brady, QB for New England) are having a 20,000 sq ft mansion built for themselves (other image). The mansion will have a six car garage.

In other cases (e.g., involving Al Gore), the target of the hypocrisy accusation claimed that carbon credits offset the consumption. However, in the case of Ms. Bundchen, the Sierra Club doesn't seem to be willing to buy that explanation. I can't find any article on whether the couple is claiming carbon credits offsets so I can't address the actual hypocrisy.

Nice article on the situation (including Sierra Club quote here)

Recess Appointments -
Hypocrisy by Silence?

Back in 2006, the NYTimes had this to say about some recess appointments made by then President Bush:

"It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses.

Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments -- a constitutional gimmick that allows a president to appoint someone when Congress is in recess to a job that normally requires Senate approval. The appointee serves until the next round of Congressional elections...."

Recently, President Obama made 15 recess appointments.

It may that the NYTimes will say, "well those recess appointments were for people who were unqualified but these recess appointments are for people who are qualified."

This would require, seemingly, a case by case study of each appointment which is somewhat tedious.

Thus it may be that the NYTimes will be silent on the issue of Obama's recess appointments. If they remain silent, I think I can't legitimately say they are being hypocritical - nicely gamed NYTimes.

NYTimes 2006 editorial here
NYTimes 2010 news report (from the AP) of Obama's recess appointments here.

Marjorie Dannenfelser is not a hypocrite. Just not a good guesser.

and Bart Stupak may not be a hypocrite either, if he believes what almost nobody else believes


A few days ago, Marjorie Dannenfelser had an op ed in the Washington Post praising Representative Bart Stupak on the abortion issue. Here is the beginning of the op ed

"The health-care debate has come down to a fight over abortion. And the face of that fight is Bart Stupak, a nine-term congressman from Michigan who supports the reform effort but has said he won't vote for a bill without a strong prohibition on federal funding for abortions -- even if it means no reform at all. "They know I won't fold," Stupak told me late Thursday. ..."

Ultimately, Representative Stupak voted to support a bill that would allow federal funds (or possibly more federal funds or possibly alternate federal funds - no one is absolutely sure what the ultimate affect will be) to be used for abortion. Subsequent to his vote, the organization headed by Marjorie Dannenfelser revoked the award. Here is the Foxnews report on this,

"...Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the group was revoking its "Defender of Life" award to Stupak, which was to be awarded at its Wednesday night gala..."

Representative Stupak claims to be satisfied on the abortion issue by citing a promise by President Obama to issue an executive order (the EO is widely considered by both the pro abortion and the anti abortion sides as being meaningless as EOs can't overturn statute and, in any event, unlike statute, may be revoked easily and quickly). So Representative Stupak is not necessarily a hypocrite either if he has an honest view of the EO that is counter to the normalistic interpretation.


Washington Post Op Ed is here.

Article from Fox news about the revocation of the award is here

Leftist and pro choice Slate columnist admits the EO on abortion is meaningless is here

Pro life org states the EO on abortion is meaningless here

The Slaughter Solution -
Is it Hypocrisy?

Back in 2005, Representative Louise Slaughter (image on left) joined a lawsuit that challenged use of the 'self executing' solution (a vote that deems a bill passed without actually voting on the bill) for a bill that would raise the debt ceiling.

This month, Representative Slaughter has authored a solution to the Health Care legislative situation that used a 'self executing' solution.

Although I haven't seen anyone use the word 'hypocrisy', I certain would expect to see that if the issue were not so arcane.

Notwithstanding the fact that I can't find anyone specify charging Slaughter with hypocrisy, I will defend her against that charge.

Here is the defense: that 2005 lawsuit lost (the decision is complicated and does not actually make a judgment on the constitutionality of the 'self execution' but instead declines to get into legislative stuff).

Thus Slaughter is entitled to impute that she was factually wrong in 2005 and thus shifting her position is simply a realignment based on the facts.

I personally can't see any reason why the 'self execution' bill would be easier to pass than the health care measure that would be executed but, then again, that's not the subject of the blog.

UPDATE: Ultimately, the Slaughter solution was not used.


Information on the 2005 situation here
The decision on the lawsuit is here

Lawyers and Their Clients and the NY Times

Apparently a number of attorneys who are appointed officials in the Department of Justice represented, or assisted the representation of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detainment Camp.

A group seeking to know who these attorneys are and what their current role in the Department of Justice led to an editorial in the NYTimes (March 2010) saying, in part,

".... these lawyers did nothing wrong. In fact, they upheld the highest standards of their profession and advanced the cause of democratic justice."

Interestingly, the NYTimes said this (in May 2009) about the Department of Justice officials who represented the President of the United States in their work which led to enhanced interrogation of a half dozen detainees,

"...They deliberately contorted the law to justify decisions that had already been made, making them complicit in those decisions. Their acts were a grotesque abrogation of duty and breach of faith: as government officials sworn to protect the Constitution; as lawyers bound to render competent and honest legal opinions; and as citizens who played a major role in events that disgraced this country...."

These editorials might lead me to accuse the NYTimes of hypocrisy. However, there are some differences between the two cases.

1. In the first (2010) case, the lawyers were presumably working for free. In the second case, they were being paid.

2. In the first case, the lawyers were working for people who were not citizens of the U.S. and who were suspected of carrying out war against the U.S., and furthermore doing so outside the 'laws of war' (that is they were hiding amongst civilians and not wearing uniforms). Their work was confined to representing the detainees in hearings examining the lawfulness of their detention, not in military trial since there have been no military trials (if the detainees had been tried in military court the military would have provided them with counsel for free although it might have been that the detainees would have wanted the same lawyers who represented them in detension hearings). In the second case, the lawyers were working for the U.S.

3. In the first case, the current position in the Department of Justice of some of the attorneys who represented detainees was unknown (that is, it was possible that a lawyer who represented a detainee was working in the area of detainee law and this would represent the same problem as if a lawyer who recently represented organized crime was working for the Dept of Justice in prosecuting organized crime).

It seems to me that almost any normal citizen would be more concerned about the 2010 case than the 2009, but the NYTimes evidently goes the other way. Since this blog is not about policy nor about ideology but simply about hypocrisy, I'll leave it at that.

The NYTimes editorial praising lawyers for representing detainees is here
The NYTimes editorial criticizing lawyers for representing the President is here.

Paul Krugman on Unemployment Insurance

Dr. Krugman (shown in the image accepting a Nobel prize in economics) has a column in the N Y Times.

On Mar 5 he said that Sen Kyl (R_AZ) was wrong for saying that extending unemployment benefits increases unemployment. Krugman also said that Democrats use a textbook theory that this is wrong.

Krugman, however, is an author of a textbook which supports Sen Kyl's argument (the coauthor is Krugman's wife).

Krugman has been on both sides of the social security issue. He has said it was a crises at sometimes and at others said it was a minor problem easily managed.

Hypocrisy? Actually this is more like being a servant of the ideology he identifies with (the Democrats).

Here is his "Sen Kyl's theory is wrong" opinion piece.

Here is the textbook supporting Sen Kyl's theory.

here is a column by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post in which she lays out the various Krugman positions on the social security crisis.

Elijah the P.prophet (aka Eliyahu hanavi) Didn't Much Like Hypocrisy

The image is a painting called Elijah on Mt Carmel.

It turns out that just before this scene occured, Elijah said something to the general public.

It is in I Kings 18:21

The translation is uncertain (but the sense of it is obvious). Here are some translations (I'm starting in the middle of the verse),

(new international) "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."

(KJames rev) "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him."

(Y.young's literal) "Till when are ye leaping on the two branches? -- if J...vah [is] God, go after Him; and if Baal, go after him;"

(new Living Bible0 “How much longer will you waver, hobbling between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him! But if Baal is God, then follow him!”

It seems plain enough that Elijah would rather the people honestly worship Baal then worship both Baal and the God of Israel.

Given that worshiping the God of Israel would entail accepting the various verses condemning idolatry, other gods, etc., it seems to me that worshiping both would be hypocritical from the point of Judaism. I'm not sure if Baal allows multi god worship.

Whose Hypocrisy Is Worse

John Dickerson, formerly White House reporter for Time Magazine wrote an opinion piece in Slate, the upshot of which was that a Republican Hypocrisy is worse than Democratic Hypocrisy.

He specifically states that Democrats are hypocrites for endorsing the filibuster when they were a minority and proposing to nullify the filibuster now that they are in power. He specifically states that Republicans are hypocrites for criticizing the earmarks in the stimulus bill while also seeking earmarks from the stimulus bill. He says that the second case of hypocrisy (he calls it policy hypocrisy) is worse than the first case of hypocrisy (he calls that procedure hypocrisy).

Actually, I'm not sure either is hypocrisy (although the first case is closer).

The Democrats embrace of the filibuster was during the appointment of judges (which seems pretty important by the way). Their opposition to filibuster is regarding the health care bill (also important). However, there are two distinctions that Mr. Dickerson does not indulge.

1. Judicial appointments are for life. A health care bill could be amended (at least in theory) by a future Congress. Thus it might be (although I admit its not a great argument) that one may say, "well filibusters are vital on judicial matters but not on other matters". An obvious weakness of this argument is that a complex matter like health care would require enormous effort to amend.

2. Not every Democrat had both the "yeah for filibuster" position before 2006 and the 'boo for filibuster" position. To me, it doesn't make sense to say "Democrats are hypocrites", only "Smith, a Democrat is a hypocrite, or Jones, a democrat is a hypocrite"

Regarding the Republican actions on earmarks, there is a major flaw in Dickerson's logic.

Most Republican Senators and Congressmen who were anti earmark did not say "I oppose all earmarks and will not accept earmarks for my district (or State)". They said, in effect, "I oppose the size of the earmarks" which is quite a different thing. Also, Dickerson says that the Republicans now say "the stimulus didn't work" after having asked for earmarks. This doesn't count as hypocrisy for one technical and one quantitative reason. The technical reason is that one could have supposed a given earmark would 'work' while in the aggregate the earmarks would not work. The quantitative reason is that Dickerson fails to realize that when people say, "the earmarks didn't work", they usually mean, "the earmarks didn't work well". Its quite a different thing.

Dickerson's opinion piece is here.

These People Are NOT Hypocrites

The Atlanta Progressive News does not disguise its ideology.

When a reporter working for them was too objective, they fired him for being too objective and they told him, in writing that his objectivity was the reason for the firing and, to top it off, they issued a press release restating this point.

Here is a portion of the press release

"...Jonathan Springston served as Staff Writer, then Senior Staff Writer for a total of four years. During that time, he has grown as a writer and has produced a lot of content which has served to inform our readership on issues ranging from Troy Davis to Grady Hospital...

At a very fundamental, core level, Springston did not share our vision for a news publication with a progressive perspective. He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn’t the right fit...."

There is something very refreshing about this. I frequently find subjective, value laden statements placed in the Washington Post 'news' articles and this subjectivity, etc. is even worse in other newspapers and worse still on TV on stations that claim to be objective.

This information was taken from the Atlanta Creative Loafing weekly.

Hypocrisy Awareness

In an opinion piece at Slate, a webzine owned by the Washington Post, Ben Eidelson explains why the filibuster is OK for Democrats but not for Republicans.

Mr. Eidelson was obviously aware that many people had supported the use of the filibuster when there were a majority of the Senate were Republicans (then Senator Obama was one of them) but now oppose the filibuster now that a majority of the Senate are Democrats (now President Obama is one of them). He obviously doesn't like those people (e.g., President Obama) accused of hypocrisy. Thus he has come up with a reason why 'sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander'.

Here is the core of his argument,

"...the charge that it is somehow hypocritical for Democrats to decry Republican filibusters as affronts to majority rule—if they also stand by their past decisions to filibuster the Republicans—is easily answered. When Democrats have filibustered Republicans in recent years, they have very often represented more Americans than the Republican majority [considerable arithmatic went into this statement]; the same is almost never true in reverse..."

Clever.

I'll not analyze the argument. The point is the the author is hyperware of the hypocrisy argument and has taken considerable trouble to devise a statistical argument to justify what seems hypocrisy on its face.

To Apologize would be Hypocritical

This is a new twist. The chair of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, admitted that a part of the latest report issued by that organization was wrong (egregiously so) but refused to apologize because it would be hypocritical. This was "... because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report..."

If I could I would try to analyze whether refusing to apologize because it would be hypocritical would be hypocritical. I could do this if I had access to his statements asking other people to apologize but I don't have access to that.

article here IPCC image from his wikipedia entry

Nancy Grace Hypocrite???

Actually, the opinion piece refers to her as 'hypocrite extraordinaire.

I'm not sure I understand all of this but here is a central point from the opinion piece,

"...The latest news has Grace’s lawyers trying to ban cameras from videotaping her being questioned about a woman, Melinda Duckett, who killed herself after Grace interviewed her.

Grace — who has made an entire career out of turning other people’s tragedies into entertainment — argued that the video might cause “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and undue harm should the videotape be released prior to trial for purposes unrelated to the litigation,” according to the emergency motion, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Ocala."

I don't understand how talking about other people's tragedies is the same thing as banning cameras from a particular place where you are being questioned. In the Duckett case, the woman in question (who had a missing child) agreed to be questioned on camera. Nancy's questioning of the woman was certainly pointed and in my opinion, insulting and demeaning and Mrs Duckett committed suicide the next day (which was the day before the film was to be aired on national TV). However, if the woman had not agreed to be filmed, she would not have been filmed.

I think you can accuse Nancy Grace of many things and I find her personally distasteful. However, the legal motion to ban filming of herself being questioned does not meet my test for hypocrisy.

The image and text taken from a blog on the orlando florida sentinel

She said the System Worked. It Didn't. Was That Hypocrisy?


I've waited a while to see if anyone would accuse the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano (shown with the President), of hypocrisy. I'm glad to see that I can't find anyone making this accusation. Sure she has been accused of incompetence, ignorance, stupidity, etc. but I don't have a blog about that.

Even though I'm pleased, I'm a bit surprised. Back on December 26 she said "...the system worked..." and on December 27, she said, "...everything went like clockwork...". By December 28 she said "...the system did not work in this instance...". By Dec 29, the President said, "...[there was a] systemic failure...".

Lets take this one at a time.

In the "...the system worked..." and "...the system went like clockwork..", it seems to me that she was speaking about only the aspect of the system that includes getting people off an airplane and getting an offender in custody (it is less clear in the '..system worked.." case and more clear in the "...like clockwork..." case.)

Of course the 'empty the plane after the terrorism attempt' system is far less important than the 'prevent the terrorism' system. I think people intuitively saw that even if no one articulated it (or at least I can't find a case of that). Thus, to me she was attempting the old denotation/cognition trick and it failed (one might say that the spin system failed - especially when the President made his statement).

Thus, like the commentators at large I'm not calling Secretary Nepolitano a hypocrite.


December 26 report (which is a Dec 27 update of a previously reported story) here
December 27 report here.
December 28 report here.
December 29 report here.