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.