In the center of the image (taken in 2005) is Dr. Ben Carson who, as of this post, is seeking the Republican nomination for President. On the right is a dentist named Dr. Al Costa.
The two met in the 1990s and did charity work together. They then became best friends and business partners in various real estate ventures.
In 2007, Dr. Costa was charged with defrauding medical insurance by billing for procedures not performed. According to the charges, this began in 1995 and by the time Costa retired from dentistry later in about 2004 (he gave up his dental licence then), the fraud, per the charge against him, amounted to about $44,000. In 2007, Costa pleaded guilty to most of the charges. A sentencing hearing took place in 2008. Dr.Carson testified as a character witness for Costa and asked the court for leniency. Costa took responsibility for his actions and showed remorse and was given a sentence of house arrest, community service and a $250,000 fine (in addition to restitution of the $44,000) but no jail time.
In 2012, Carson authored a book "America the Beautiful". In the book he says the following regarding medical fraud, "I would not advocate chopping off people’s limbs, but there would be
some very stiff penalties for this kind of fraud, such as loss of one’s
medical license for life, no less than 10 years in prison, and loss of
all of one’s personal possessions.
So the question, would seem to be whether Carson changed his mind or is a hypocrite. The fact that Carson is still friends with Costa might weigh the decision to the hypocrisy side.
But, there is an oddity in that 2012 book that overtakes this argument. In that book, Carson cites the case of an overzealous prosecutor hunting down a dentist (he does not name the dentist but it is surely Costa) to gain publicity or penalty money.
So, in effect, though Costa admits guilt, Carson says Costa isn't guilty. I think this might mean his plea for leniency was hypocritical if he stated Costa was guilty in that testimony but I can't get the raw testimony. (I spent considerable time looking for it - I suspect the testimony carefully was crafted to avoid acknowledgement of Costa's guilt).
So, although Carson may be guilty of a 2008 hypocrisy, it seems the 2012 book, assuming it is taken at face value, can not be a case of hypocrisy.
Here is an article from the AP on Carson (it has the image)
Here is an article from something called Rawstory (which has a lot of detail and direct quotes from Carson's book)
Here is an article from yahoo news - it is the one Irwin sent me that got me to look at this subject.
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".
Monday, December 07, 2015
Not hypocrisy even though a contradiction
Recently, some students and faculty at Princeton University discovered (notwithstanding that this has been common knowledge for many decades) that Woodrow Wilson was a racist. There was, thus a series of motions and/or request and/or demands to have the name of Woodrow Wilson removed from buildings on campus.
The NY Times, essentially approved of this in an editorial in November 2015.
Going back a hundred years, however, the NY Times was a big supporter of Woodrow Wilson in both the 1912 and 1916 election for President of the US.
A hundred years ago, none of the current editorial board of the NYTimes worked for that newspaper. Even if they had, the time is enough for someone to change their mind. Of course, the NYTimes, in 2015 should have admitted that they were pro-Wilson in their 2015 editorial (they didn't) but that is just a mistake of detail.
2015 editorial here
Links to 1912 and 1916 endorsement of Woodrow Wilson here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)