Is Nancy Pelosi a Hypocrite regarding Grimm vs others

As the post below says, one time speaker of the House Pelosi first image)has called for Representative Michael Grimm to resign. This follows Grimm's guilty plea (felony level) of contributing to a false tax filing.

An opinion piece by Ed Morrissey accuses Pelosi of sanctimonious hypocrisy because she did not call for the resignation of Charles Rangel, Bill Jefferson or

Jack Murtha (the next three images).

This is complicated because the various charges are all different (also, I'm not commenting on the 'sanctimonious' issue).

Going down the list:

Michael Grimm pleaded guilty, in December 2014, to one charge (a felony). Pelosi called for his resignation (sort of - actually Pelosi called for the current speaker of the House, John Boehner to force Grimm to resign).
 
Then Representative Bill Jefferson (D-Louisiana)'s residence and office were raided in 2005 and 2006 by law enforcement. Famously, cash was discovered in Jefferson's freezer in the residence. Pelosi asked Jefferson to resign from his committee chairmanship. Jefferson was indicted in 2007. Jefferson was convicted in mid 2009 of 11 charges (of the 16 in the indictment). However, Jefferson had been defeated in the 2008 elections, so post-conviction, resignation was not possible as he was not a sitting Representative at the time.

Jack Murtha (D- Pennsylvania) was involved in numerous ethically problematic situations, from taking cash in return for advocacy in the early 80s to placing earmarks in legislation to directly support political allies by providing them funds for services they were ill equipped to perform in 2006. However, Murtha was never indicted.

Charles Rangel (D-NY) was involved in a number of tax evasion or income non reporting events and accepted various favors such as debt forgiveness and other income that actually financed his various election campaigns without reporting them in campaign finance reports. He was not charged with any tax crimes (some considered this improper favoritism by the Obama Dept of Justice but that's another issue). Rangel was, however, charged with a number of ethics violations by a congressional committee and found guilty of most of them. Pelosi voted in favor of censuring Rangel but against placing the censuring language in the Congressional record. To repeat, however, there was no felony or other criminal charge.

So, in sum, Pelosi could justify her 'make Grimm resign' comment even though she didn't ask Jefferson, Murtha or Rangel to resign because only Grimm was convicted of a felony. Thus no hypocrisy (although I suspect Pelosi would be uncomfortable to have her actually explain this reasoning in detail).


Morrissey's opinion piece is here.

or

 http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/24/pelosi-to-boehner-force-grimm-to-resign-over-tax-evasion-conviction/

A odd conclusion of non- hypocrisy

Michael Grimm is a Congressman who represents Staten Island and some of Kings County, NY. (the 11th).

He was convicted of one count of assisting in the preparation of a false tax return (the amount of the falseness was pretty high so, it was a felony). Much of the 'falseness' involved non reporting of illegal immigrant workers. However he will apparently not resign.

Mr. Grimm has made numerous statements condemning corruption and calling for the prosecution of that and of immigration violations. Irwin sent me an email suggesting this for hypocrisy analysis.

After thinking about it for a while, it seems to me that this is not a case of hypocrisy. This is because Grimm didn't say 'no one should be corrupt and no one should use illegal immigration' but rather called for prosecution (or, as Grimm implied, 'an end to non enforcement') of corruption and illegal immigration. That's what actually happened. So Grimm called for prosecution and prosecution was carried out, ironically, on Grimm himself. So Grimm is now a convicted felon (even if not a hypocrite - probably he'd rather it be the other way around). Grimm is also what could be called a victim of irony.

An article reporting Grimm's plea of 'guilty' is here.

Interestingly, former Speaker of the House Pelosi called for Grimm's resignation. I'll review what she said when Congressman Rangel (also of NY - the 13th district representing some of Manhattan and some of the Bronx) pleaded guilty of tax evasion. 

Ebola Czar Hypocrisy

Back in the Bush administration there was a time when avian flu was causing concern. Actually more than concern.

President Bush appointed Stewart Simonson to coordinate monitoring and preparation. He was a lawyer. Democrats criticized the appointment because he was inexperienced in medical response issues. Republicans either supported or kept quiet on the experience issue.

Recently, President Obama appointed Ron Klain, a lawyer, to coordinate monitoring and response to Ebola (Klain is sitting on the couch in the image).   I presume some Republicans are criticizing the Klain appointment and Democrats defending it but I can't find any particular critics or defenders who also had comments in the avian flu situation thus I can't identify any body as specifically hypocritical. However, the if time goes on some of the most vigorous and well resourced (from a research standpoint) critics of the avian flu appointment (e.g., Move On and The New Republic) don't say anything, that would make them hypocrites. The difficulty of documenting that someone hasn't made a comment will prevent me from making the hypocrisy accusation in the case of silence.

Anyway, a Washington Post story goes back in time to give examples of the criticism of the Simonson appointment, here.

One criticism of Klain's appointment is implicit in a recent cold start.

Carol Costello and the hypocrisy of violence commentary

Carol Costello is an on air reporter for CNN. She is the recipient of various media reporting awards.

One of the events Costello reported on was the Ray Rice affair. In July 2014,she criticized the NFL, Ray Rice, ESPN defenders of the NFL, etc. and used her experience as a victim to do so.

Then in October 2014, Costello aired audio from an altercation involving Bristol Palin (who was struck during the altercation). Costello did that with evident glee.

People pointed out the hypocrisy and Costello has apologized (in writing) for the Oct 2014 airing (although Costello does not seem to understand why her October 2014 on air actions are evidence of left wing media bias). This story has still to run as Costello has, as of the time of this posting, yet to give an on air apology nor has CNN taken any action (such as suspension or a fine).


Costello's July 2014 criticism of the NFL is here. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/26/opinion/costello-ray-rice-domestic-violence/

A Washington Post article summarizing both the July criticism of the NFL, etc. and the October glee at the violence used on Bristol Palin is here.

Leonardo DiCaprio Preacher for Carbon limits but Mega User of HydroCarbons

I've done the green hypocrisy idea before but this opportunity was too good to pass up. The Daily Mail (of England) had a long article with lots of images on Leonardo DiCaprio's speech, Sept 23, at the UN (first image) which warned of greenhouse warming as well as images of DiCaprio's houses (the image shows a house owned by DiCaprio in Palm Springs, California).

It turns out that DiCaprio has 4 houses (2 in California and 2 condos in NYC). He also is a frequent flier on private jets, rents mega yachts, etc. 

The carbon footprint of Mr. DiCaprio is essentially off the charts. I would estimate it as two orders of magnitude above the average world per capita. The best thing here is that Mr. DiCaprio apparently thinks that because he sometimes drives a Prius hybrid and sometimes bicycles, he is 'not guilty' of carbon hogging (and of hypocrisy). 

I think he is guilty of both.

The Daily Mail article is here

A oddly honest admission of possible hypocrisy

An organization called "Transparify" did a study of the transparency of think tanks.

Of course transparency is partially subjective and the definition of a think tanks is also partially subjective.

There were two interesting thing about the study:

1. They found that one of the least transparent think tanks was an organization called "Open Society Foundations" which advocates for transparency.

2. After some additional research they were able to determine that Open Society Foundations is 100% funded by George Soros (the website of Open Society Foundations states that Mr. Soros is the founder of Open Society Foundations but gives no information on the source of funding.

3. Open Society Foundations funded an organization called "The Think Tank fund of the Open Society Foundation". The Think Tank Fund is the only funding source of Transparify, the organization which did the study (the image shows interlocking interests in media companies in the USA).

With respect to Mr. Soros being a hypocrite, the analysis would have to deal with the issue of whether a primary funding source (Mr. Soros himself is not a 'think tank' I presume) needs to deal with the same standards as the various directly (or indirectly) funded organizations.

For now I just appreciate the oddity of the situation.


Study result here.

Appeals Court Catches the EEOC in hypocrisy

The US Equal Employment Commission had taken action against the Kaplan Higher Education Corporation and others. The EEOC charged that Kaplan was discriminating against blacks by looking the the credit history of job applicants.

The court's (US court of appeals for the 6th circuit) begins their opinion with the following:

"In this case the EEOC sued

the defendants for using the

same type of background check that the

EEOC itself uses. The EEOC’s personnel handbook recites that “[o]verdue just debts increase temptation to commit illegal or unethical acts as a

means of gaining funds to meet financial obligations.  Because of that concern, the EEOC runs credit checks on applicants for 84 of the agency’s 97 positions. The defendants (collectively,“Kaplan”) have the same concern; and thus Kaplan runs credit checks on applicants for positions that provide access to students’ financial-loan information, among other positions...."

 

However, the hypocrisy was not the determining fact in the decision in favor of Kaplan. Instead, the court found that the EEOC was unable to demonstrate a disparate impact. This was because Kaplan did not require racial information when people applied for positions at Kaplan.  Instead, the EEOC created an evaluation method where the drivers license pictures were evaluated by a team of 'racial identification experts" who opined on the race of the applicant.Here is what the court had to say about that,

"...The EEOC brought this case on the basis of a homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, administered by persons with no particular expertise to administer it, tested by no one, and accepted only by the witness himself...."

 

So, even though there was hypocrisy, it was irrelevant to the decision.

The court's decision is here.

Plastic Bag Hypocrisy?

The NY Times had an editorial endorsing a bill to require retailers to charge $0.10 for each plastic bag they provide custormers.

There were several news articles on this bill, and although I am not sure, I think the charge does not require the NY Times to charge for the plastic bags they provide customers.

Of course it is possible, though unlikely, that NY Times editorial writers think the ill effects of plastic bags described by the NY Times (litter, clogged storm drains) do not come from newspaper bags. If they are that clueless, then they are not hypocrites.

The NY Times editorial is here.
A news report, from another publication is here.

Hillel Foundation, the American Studies Association and Hypocrisy

 A few weeks ago, the American Studies Association (ASA) voted to boycott all Israeli scholars (I think that means no Israeli could present papers at meetings - of course, why any Israeli would be presenting papers at meetings of the American Studies Association is an open question. The ASA boycott was based, on the 'lack of effective academic freedom of Palestinian scholars and students...".  The ASA boycott was opposed by numerous organizations including the Hillel Foundation.

For some years, the Hillel Foundation (We are contributors to the Hillel Foundation), has had a policy to reject the formal participation of those who boycott Israel at official Hillel events.

Recently, one Hillel (the Swathmore campus Hillel) voted to call itself the 'open Hillel' and to allow such participation.

Supporters of the Hillel at Swathmore have accused the national Hillel foundation of being hypocritical in opposing the ASA boycott while undertaking a boycott of their own. 

For Hillel not to be hypocritical, there must be substantive difference between the two cases, and, there is.

1. The ASA policy bans all Israelis, whatever their belief, whatever their academic merit, whatever the topic of the presentation or paper. The national Hillel policy bans only individuals.

2. The ASA policy aims at a highly tangential population and seems odd on its face. After all, how many Israelis are even interested in American studies. The national Hillel policy bans a group that is much larger (a lot of anti Israel groups are on American campus).

3. The ASA policy seems to single out Israel and, in fact, their boycott policy falls under the national Hillel policy (which dates a few years before the ASA boycott). That is, the national Hillel policy mentions boycotts and those with double standards (the ASA doesn't seem to acknowledge that some groups are discriminated against other than Palestinians). 

Thus, I don't think Hillel can be fairly called hypocritical in this case.

Notwithstanding that, I personally, don't understand the national Hillel policy. It seems to me that national Hillel ought to allow, on a case by case basis, supporters of the boycott, those with double standards, etc. to address Hillel if such persons are otherwise of good will.

The open Hillel policy is here.
The national Hillel policy is here.
Information on the ASA policy is here.
A NYTimes editorial following a NYState Legislature action is here

You're a slease; Oh yeah, you're worse, you're a hypocrite.

The primary for the Democratic candidate for Governor of Maryland is this year. The leading candidates are Doug Gansler (left, the current Attorney General of Maryland) and Anthony Brown (right, the current Lieutenant Governor of Maryland).

Gansler implied Brown was unethical because Brown's campaign had accepted some $30k or so of donations from individuals in firms with ongoing contracts building, maintaining or managing the State Healthcare website (the Maryland health care website is arguably the third worst of the nations worst performing health care websites - Oregon and Minnesota are worst. In addition, Brown was formally tasked by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley with leading the website effort).  Gansler does not use the word 'hypocrite' nor does he imply any criminal or civil wrong doing. He does however fail to mention that the $30k involved is below 1% of the Brown campaign funds raised so far.

Brown countered by accusing Gansler of hypocrisy because Gansler's campaign had accepted contributions from individuals in companies that do business with the State (the scale of this is unknown). 

Gansler then said that the latter contributions (that is the ones to the Gansler campaign) are less important that the former (that is the ones to Brown) because the individuals in companies that contributed to the Gansler campaign were awarded contracts based on bidding while the firms that contributed to Brown are in an ongoing effort managed by Brown. Gansler could have said (he did not) that the contributions to Brown's campaign were a type of protection racket given that many of these firms should be fired for bad work.

First up, Gansler. He didn't accuse Brown of hypocrisy. 
Next up Brown. He did accuse Gansler of hypocrisy. Gansler's defense, that is, that the two situations are dissimilar, is a reasonable one even if the dissimilarity isn't that much (by the way, Gansler's implication that all Maryland contracts awarded by bid are on the up and up is laughable - bidding language can be, and frequently is 'tilted' to produce certain results- and selection panels are easily influenced by 'hints'). 

In fact, I think that maybe the issue that Gansler was trying to emphasize was that the website that Brown was 'in charge of' isn't working.

The idea for this post came from Irwin. He had seen an article in the Baltimore Sun that reported on these issues.