Tillerson, Russia, and hypocrisy

The title of the post is not mine but from a post by Paul Mirengoff on the blog Powerline (first image is Mirengoff).

Mirengoff is a retired attorney who currently is head of an organization in Minnesota that advocates for lower taxes and less regulation.  

Mirengoff wrote this post, apparently anticipating that people who support the nomination of Rex Tillerson (second image is Tillerson) for Secretary of State will criticize people who oppose Tillerson on grounds of hypocrisy.  Mirengoff anticipates that much of this criticism will wrongly cite hypocrisy (there are of course other grounds to oppose this nomination).  I can't remember someone anticipating incorrect hypocrisy criticism before.





Mirengoff's post is here.

Harry Reid Praises FBI director's integrity then reverses

Back in July 2016, Reid praised the FBI Director, James Comey as a man of integrity. This was after Comey decided (or possibly recommended) no prosecution for presumptive Presidential nominee (and former Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton. That was in regard to the matter of the emails. 

A bit later and Reid criticized Comey when Comey revealed the existence of Clinton email on the hard drive of a laptop computer belonging to former US Representative Anthony Weiner (image of Reid is from an article on that).

Then after the CIA said that Russia may be behind the Wikileak promulgation of email copied from various computer servers, Reid said Comey should be investigated.

This might be considered hypocrisy but it is, I think, simply the maximal partisanship of a very partisan individual.  In fact Reid is so partisan that he is completely unapologetic for what is arguably a bald face 2012 lie about Mitt Romney (when confronted (in 2015) with the fact that his accusation that Romney hadn't paid income tax was untrue and that he didn't actually have a source for his accusation, Reid said it was OK since Romney wasn't elected (the Washington Post called it an 'appalling defense')



Youtube collection of praise for FBI Director James Comey (in July 2016)  here (at about 22 seconds of the video)

Politico article where Reid says Comey may have broken law (Oct 2016).

The Hill article where Harry Reid (in Dec 2016) says FBI director should be investigated re: allegation of Russian interference in election.

WaPo Article where Reid is unapologetic for 2012 false accusation Romney.

Some Issues with Madonna

Madonna has had some amusing things to say which, while not hypocrisy are close to it.

One such was her promise to give oral sex to anyone who voted (in the 2016 Presidential Election) for Hillary Clinton (this was during an introduction to Amy Schumer - Madonna is on the left of the image, Amy on the right). 

A man came by Madonna's hotel room the day of the election with a photo (from his cell phone) of himself voting for Hillary. 

Madonna didn't come out but a security guard responded that he would not get the promised oral sex. 

Oddly, or perhaps not, this seems to be the only case where someone wanted her to make good on the promise.

Another Madonna story is close to hypocrisy.  This comes from a wide ranging interview that Madonna gave to Billboard (an on line web zine and print magazine). She was, I think, wearing the apparel in the second image.

Among the subjects covered was Madonna's opinion of Donald Trump (the interview was taken several days after the 2016 Election when the results were known).

Billboard asked the following:

As a fellow New Yorker, have you ever met the president-elect?

 

Madonna's answer was:

 

I wouldn’t call him a friend or ­anything, but I’ve certainly met him. I did a photo shoot years ago at [Trump’s] Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach [Fla.] for a Versace campaign. He’s a very friendly guy, ­charismatic in that ­boastful, macho, alpha-male way. I found his political incorrectness amusing. Of course, I didn’t know he was going to be running for ­president 20 years later. People like that exist in the world, I’m OK with it. They just can’t be heads of state. I just can’t put him and Barack Obama in the same ­sentence, same room, same job description.

 

Interestingly, the final sentence of Madonna's answer contains both an unqualified assertion and a contradiction of that assertion. This is probably just an example of mistaken work use. When Madonna said, "I just can't...", she undoubtedly meant, "I am unhappy..." or something similar.

Story about Madonna's promise is here.
The Billboard interview is here.

An Atheist Explains His Apparent Hypocrisy

Phil Zuckerman (image on left) is a professor at Pitzer College in California. He is an atheist.  He was asked to explain his frequent criticism of Christianity and Mormonism while avoiding criticism of Islam (apparent double standard or maybe even hypocrisy). 

Here is what he said,

"...“I know what keeps me from critiquing Islam on my blog is just fear,” Phil Zuckerman said at a discussion on religious liberty at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. “I’ve got three kids.

“So I know I can say anything about Christianity or Mormonism, and I’m not living in fear, which is a testament to Christianity and Mormonism, and that’s wonderful. Thank you,” said Zuckerman, who is a self-described atheist and professor of secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif...."

Is this actually hypocrisy? Well, one matter that makes this different is that he isn't 'doing what he said not to do' but rather 'not doing what his thoughts imply'. Another matter is that he is open about the reason for the 'not doing what his thought imply'. Thus, I don't think I can actually call this hypocrisy.

The source for this is here.

Nuanced Brexit Hypocrisy - Emily Badger

Emily Badger (image on the left) works for the Washington Post and is an opinion journalist.   She is a contributor to the Washington Post's wonkblog. She had a post that opinions that the Brexit vote shouldn't have been taken to the people. 

Here is part of the post,

"... this [the Brexit vote result] was, perhaps, predictable, as some political scientists and historians have warned that a simple yes-or-no public referendum can be a terrible way to make a decision with such complex repercussions...David A. Bell, a Princeton historian [of French History and professor - his image is above]... argues that the result of referendums is much more often anti-democratic. He divides referendums into two categories: The first implicates fundamental questions of sovereignty (should Quebec become independent, or Scotland break away from Great Britain?). These kinds of referendums are appropriate...."


Her only argument against the Brexit vote involves appealing to the authority of exactly one person. Furthermore, and more astonishingly, it appears that the Brexit is exactly the kind of referendum that Professor Bell would find appropriate.

In fact, Badger actually sees the weakness in this argument,


"....Brexit supporters certainly cast the question as one of fundamental sovereignty and "independence" from Europe...."

Thus Badger has to resort to another authority. This is what she comes up with,

"...Martin Kettle [image on left], an editor at the Guardian in the U.K., argued last Thursday, before the final vote, that Brexit should itself be a referendum on referendums, "now the weapon of choice for populist parties of left and right":There may, in certain circumstances, be an argument for referendums in our politics. But the argument has to be better than that we have had some referendums in the past or that a lot of the public would like one. People will always agree they want a say....[but Kettle goes on to oppose the referendum choice. He makes an argument I can't follow]"

Badger has also opined against voter ID and for early voting. It would be interesting if she were asked if she was against voter ID and for early voting in the Brexit referendum.

It's possible that there is some logic to her appeal to two authorities even though I can't follow it.  However, all I can see is someone who doesn't like the outcome of a vote and seeks to find a reason why it is somehow logically invalid while using an argument that goes against the conclusion she favors. Thus I call it hypocrisy.



Badger's post regarding the Brexit vote is here.
Badger's anti voter ID opinion is here. 
Badget's pro early voting opinion is here.


.

Hillary Clinton and Radical Islam and Hypocrisy

Back in November 2015, former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton spoke at the Council of Foreign Relations (Image is from that event).

Part of this was in regard to attacks by moslems on US targets where the attacker shouts out 'Allah Akbar' or is connected to ISIS or similar evidence. Hillary said,

 ".... Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization or repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction. It gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side...."

Now, in June 2016, in a phone interview with The Hill (that's a media organization), Hillary said,

 "From my perspective, it matters what we do, not what we say. It matters that we got bin Laden, not what name we called him, but if he is somehow suggesting I don't call this for what it is, he hasn't been listening.... [the US is facing terrorist enemies] that use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people....We have to stop them, and we will. We have to defeat radical Jihadist terrorism, and we will..."To me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I'm happy to say either, but that's not the point. All this talk and demagoguery and rhetoric is not going to solve the problem called an "act of terror."..."

So to some up:

November 2015: Hillary wouldn't call attacks 'radical Islam' because it would be counterproductive.
June 2016: Hillary will say  'radical Islam' but its no big deal and doesn't change anything

FWIW, Obama has made a similar, but more complicated change in rhetoric. 

So, it is hypocrisy?

Well, it is a change that happened rather quickly with no reason given for the change and no acknowledgment, not even a hint of one, that a change has been made.  I'll call it hypocrisy.

The November 2015 speech for the Council on Foreign Relations is here. 

The June 2016 interview with The Hill is here.

The Sadness of Kale Hypocrisy Guilt

I found a column written by a food writer who someone perhaps accused of hypocrisy (although that last clause is a guess).

She wrote in sorrow about her role in making kale appear in unsuitable cuisine.

Apparently, about 40 years ago, she had written a pro-kale piece.  It espoused the good things about kale, e.g. nutritional value, flavor absorption; but did not sufficiently emphasize the bad things, e.g., bitterness when cooked dry, tough texture when uncooked.

Now she had this to say (on May 29, 2016),

I’m Sorry for Helping Make Kale Cool

The leafy green is tough, bitter, and completely unsuited for salads, brownies, pizza, and most else. It’s the triumph of cool over taste.

Color it green, black, brown, blue, purple, white, or red.

Call it braunkohl, cavolo nero or riccio, chou frisé, borecole, colewort, yuyi ganlan or brassica oleracea acephala.

In any color and by any name, I know and hate kale when I see it—and these days I see it everywhere: like scorched bits of burned paper atop pizzas, muffled into pesto as a dusty, bitter blanket over pasta and risotto, studded like flecks of parchment into brownies and cookies, muddying up the cool elegance of ice creams and sorbets."

Her column (which is available here) explains her article four decades earlier by saying that kale is good when cooked in oil or fat or a deep sauce (the first image is kale cooked in a sausage sauce, the second is kale cooked with white beans with oil). However, kale is bad when served raw or improperly cooked.

Of course changing your mind is not hypocrisy.

Being imprecise or leaving information out is also not hypocrisy.

But, as I mentioned above, the hypocrisy accusation may have been the cause. Also I like the fact that her column was educational.

Changing your mind vs hypocrisy

day, May 30, 2016

Changing Your Mind vs Hypocrisy 

Donald Trump has, for the past few months criticized Bill Clinton as an abuser of women.

Only a few years ago, Donald Trump was a friend to the Clintons. The first image is from Trump's third marriage to Melania (then Knauss) in 2005. The Clintons received an invitation to the wedding and they attended it. The second image is from 2008 at the Trump Golf Club.  Rudi Giulani is to  Trump's right. Michael Bloomberg is between Trump and Clinton. Clinton has a hand around Joe Torre and Billy Crystal is next to Torre. 

Trump's friendliness to the Clintons extended to at least 2012 as pointed out in an opinion piece by Dean Obeidallah in CNN on line. Obeidallah titles his piece "Trump's Jaw Dropping Hypocrisy over Bill Clinton" (Irwin sent me a link to the piece).  Obeidallah refers to a 2012 interview in which Trump praised both Clintons and predicted that Hillary Clinton would run for President in 2016, notwithstanding the fact that Hillary had recently stated that her then position as Secretary of State would be her last public position.  The Trump interview is available at this site. The Hillary 'last public position' statement is at this site. 

Obeidallah further notes that Trump gave the Clinton Global Initiative at least $100,000. 

A 2015 exchange (report by ABC here) with Senator Rand Paul at a debate went like this:

Paul said, "You've donated to several Democratic candidates. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related affairs".

then Paul continued,  “And you said recently, quote, ‘when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.’” 

“You better believe it,” Trump responded. 

The fact that Trump changes his mind or contradicts himself is not in serious dispute. For example a few days ago, Trump contradicted himself in less than a single sentence (twitter capture is here). The sentence goes,So the Obeidallah point of "jaw dropping" isn't really jaw dropping at all, merely ordinary opinion changing or stream of consciousness muddle. Neither of those are hypocrisy.

More annoyingly, Trump's position on the Clintons may simply be a matter of bribery. His gifts to the Clinton Foundation are, in Trump's own view, something like bribery although legal. His invitation to the Clintons to Trump's wedding was also something like bribery.  Now that he wants the job of President, he can say what he wants. 

If this is going on, it is hypocrisy and is both understandable and awful.

posted by Martin Weiss  # 1:00 PM

Paypal -- Virtue Signaling or Hypocrisy

Paypal recently announced that they would not be expanding a facility they have in Charlotte, N.C.

The reason given by Paypal was opposition to a new State law. As stated in the announcement, 

"...The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture.  As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte..."

The announcement doesn't specify the law.  However, on March 24, the Governor of NC signed  House Bill 2, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. That Act establishes a State policy that requires people to use public bathrooms that correspond with their biological gender. So I assume this is the law that Paypal finds violates its values and culture (although I wonder what would happen in one of PayPal's bathrooms if a biological male decided to use a crowded women's room because he identified as a female that hour).

The possible hypocrisy is because back in 2015, PayPal partnered with Network International to serve the market in Dubai (United Arab Emirates aka UAE). Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code of the UAE states, "Whoever commits rape on a female or sodomy with a male shall be punished by death." A separate law prohibits "... intercourse contrary to nature...".

prohibits “personal intercourse contrary to nature” - See more at: http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/united-arab-emirates-lgbti-resources#sthash.9yyBGwJO.dpuf

prohibits “personal intercourse contrary to nature” - See more at: http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/united-arab-emirates-lgbti-resources#sthash.9yyBGwJO.dpuf

prohibits “personal intercourse contrary to nature” - See more at: http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/united-arab-emirates-lgbti-resources#sthash.9yyBGwJO.dpuf

PayPal also has an office in Moscow, Russia. In that country, transgendered people are prohibited from driving.

So is PayPal being a hypocrite.  In defense of Paypal, in neither Russia nor the UAE does the law specifically prohibit use of bathrooms the way the N.C. law does. Of course, a common sense view of the Russian and UAE law leads to belief that these places are far worse for transgendered (and gays and lesbians and bisexuals) than N.C.

Actually, I think it is also possible that PayPal may have decided not to expand in Charlotte anyway and figured they would use the opportunity to 'virtue signal'.

In either case, based on common sense, it seems to me that PayPal is being hypocritical, although in a more literal sense they are not.


Report on NC bathroom law is here.
Paypal's corporate announcement regarding the Charlotte, NC Expansion is here
Announcement regarding the PayPal operation in the UAE is here 
Info on the law regarding homosexuality in the UAE is here.
Info on cases of enforcement against GLBT is here.
Minimal info on PayPal in Moscow, Russia is here
Article on driving in Russia by Transgendered is here.

Nick Hanauer, Pitchforks and the Minimum Wage

In 2014 at a TED talk and then at the on line website Politico, Nick Hanauer (image one) made the case for a big rise in the minimum wage. The case was made on the basis of economic justice but also of self interest. Hanauer essentially said that it was in the best interests of the very rich to drastically increase salaries, since without  doing so there might be pitchforks out to get them.

Here is a quote from that opinion piece,

"...If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out...."

This week, a report emerged that one of Hanauer's companies, which is the "Pacific Coast Feather Company" (he is the Chairman), hired workers recently at about the federal minimum wage in Gaston County North Carolina (actually the minimum wage was $7.25 at the time and they were hired at $7.50) and doing so while getting a State subsidy (image two is the company getting a ceremonial State Flag). 

Now there are a few things that could be keeping this from being hypocrisy.

The first is timing. The opinion piece is from June 2014. 

The opening of the company's North Carolina operation (third image) may have preceded the opinion piece (interestingly, about the time plant was opened, a company plant in Nebraska was severely damaged by a tornado). 

The second is also timing. Hanauer's pitchfork theory may only mean that the very rich have X years to fix things and that he plans to raise the wages at the NC operation before the X year deadline. 

The third is knowledge. Hanauer, although Chairman of the company, might not actually know what people were going to be paid at the NC operation.

Of course the most likely thing is that Hanauer was just spouting fluff at the TED talk and in the opinion piece as most of his companies are high tech and pay above the minimum wage as a matter of course. Also Hanauer is active in left wing politics, including managing 'dark' money contributions.









Hanauer's opnion piece in Politico is here.

Report on Hanauer's company is here.

Gaston County's report on the company's opening is here.

Article tying the Nebraska disaster to the North Carolina plant opening is here.

Vox Defends De Caprio from Hypocrisy Charge

In late February 2016, at the Academy Awards (first image), Leo DiCaprio, who received the Best Actor Award, made the following statement,

 “Making The Revenant was about man’s relationship with the natural world. A world that we collectively felt in the 2015, as the hottest year recorded in the history. Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to find snow. Climate change is real. It’s happening right now. It is the most urgent threat affecting our entire species. And we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating. We need to support leaders around the world… Who do not speak for the big corporations, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people who are most affected by this, for our children’s children and for those people out there whose voices have been drowned down by the politics of greed.”

Of course it was pointed out that DiCaprio has, to say the least, a huge carbon footprint.

For example, in 2014, DiCaprio bought a mansion (7000 sq feet, 6 BD 7+ BA) in Palm Spring (see second image). 

DiCaprio also is known to be a frequent traveler on private jets (in one six week period he took a private jet 5 times and he is known to have used a private jet to go to Brazil for the 2014 soccer world cup). In addition, as of 2014, DiCaprio owned two condos (or maybe coops) in Battery City Park, NYC and one in Greenich Village, NYC
  Vox defends DiCaprio by stating that voluntary reduction of carbon by DiCaprio would be insignificant in combating world carbon emissions and that even virtuous action by all celebrities would be insignificant and that DiCaprio gives money to Green charities and organizations. The Vox piece says that DiCaprio is advocating Government action to reduce carbon emissions and that voluntary reduction (or consumption) by DiCaprio is irrelevant to that advocacy. 

Vox could have, but did not, also point out that in 2013 DiCaprio sold his Malibu beachfront (third and fourth image - from Zillow) mansion perhaps being afraid of sea level rise (DiCaprio made about a $10M capital gain on this).

This defense lacks in several ways.

First, DiCaprio's big carbon footprint is a major public relations issue for groups seeking the kind of legislation that DiCaprio advocates. Second, legislation in the U.S. restricting only corporation based carbon emission (as seems to be the DiCaprio wish) would also be insignificant since the US only is one country and, anyway, corporate carbon emissions is only a part of the country's carbon emission  (it seems to me that DiCaprio is part of the Hollywood industry and he probably has incorporated part of his fortune but I'll pass on that).  Third, DiCaprio says "...we need to work collectively together..." which seems to imply not just government action but also volunteer action.

Still, if one assumes that DiCaprio believes government action will cure the problem and that the 'collective' work is only to get legislation and that DiCaprio's private contributions to green organizations offset his consumption and don't cause a PR problem for legislation (a lot of assuming), then you could conclude that he is not a hypocrite.
s



Vox analysis piece is here.
Report on DiCaprio speech with extensive quote is here.
Daily Mail report on DiCaprio homes is here. 
Zillow site with images of DiCaprio mansion in Malibu is here

Chuck Schumer and the Supreme Court Vacancy

On February 14, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) denounced a fellow Senator (Senator McConnell of KY) for declaring (on Feb 12) that the  Senate would not confirm any justice nominated by President Obama in 2016 to the Supreme Court.

Back in July 2007, Senator Schumer called for blocking any justice nominated by President Bush to the Supreme Court.

Here is a Schumer quote from 2007

"...How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? … [F]or the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances...."

and here is a series of  Schumer quotes from 2016

"...You know, the kind of obstructionism that Mitch McConnell's talking about, he's harkening back to his old days. You know, he recently he said, 'Well, I want regular order,' ...But in 2010, right after the election or right during the election, he said, 'My number-one job is to defeat Barack Obama,' without even knowing what Barack Obama was going to propose. Here, he doesn’t even know who the president's going to propose and he said, 'No, we're not having hearings [actually the 'no hearings' is arguably a false statement- see below]; we're not going to go forward to leave the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time,'.... ".

So, is Schumer a hypocrite?

It does seem that his advocacy in 2007 is 180 degrees from his opinion in 2016 and in fact, the situation in 2007 was further from the election (about 540 days) as opposed to the 300 days Schumer mentions in his 2016 comments. But there are two interesting issues that would allow Schumer to claim that he is less inconsistent than it appears.

1. The 2007 comments were, in effect, null.  This was because no supreme court vacancy appeared that year.

2. Schumer probably believes that only opinions similar to Schumer's are objectively legitimate. Although Schumer would undoubtedly not say it so bluntly, his 2007 remarks seem to clearly indicate that opinions outside some region essentially disqualify people from appointment to the Supreme Court.  Also, in all probability, even associating with the 'wrong' people would, in Schumer's mind, be a disqualifying fact as would various other facts if Schumer didn't like the candidate. These factors would allow Schumer to tell himself that he is not a hypocrite although I personally consider the fact to point the other way.

Another factoid I came across while doing research on this is the 28 month nomination process endured by Miguel Estrada (nominated in 2001 by George W Bush for Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit). This was, to this date, the only Appeals Court nomination ever filibustered and Schumer was one of the leaders of the filibuster (there were 7 cloture votes over the 28 months). The guilt by association may have been because Estrada did legal work for the Bush team in the "Bush vs Gore" post 2000 election drama.

Two days after his Feb 14 remarks Schumer realized his 2007 remarks were being cited by various analysts and critics. He tried to make a distinction between his 2007 remarks and the Feb 12, 2016 remarks by Senator McConnell. He said that in 2007 he was willing to hear testimony but not confirm while Senator McConnell was not even willing to listen to testimony. Actually McConnell says "we won't confirm" not "we won't listen" and it only implied a possible "we won't hold hearings". Even if McConnell had said the latter it would be a minimal difference.



News report at CNS which reports Schumer's 2016 comments - this was sent me by Irwin with an implication that it might make a good hypocrisy analysis.
Post on The Hill which contains Schumer quotes (from 2016) and a video of them
Post on Breitbart which contains Schumer quot from 2007.
Opinion Piece in the NY Times about Schumer's role in blocking Miquel Estrada (2003).
Report in WallStreetJournal on Estrada's support for nomination of Elana Kagan  and her high opinion of him (2010)
Report of Senator McConnell's Feb 12, 2016 remarks on the Supreme Court Vacancy
Article in Washington Examiner saying that Schumer doesn't want his 2007 speech used against him.

Youtube of Schumer speaking before the American Constitution Society in July 2007. He is cheered seemingly unanimouisly. This is followed by footage of Schumer speaking on "This Week" on Feb 14, 2016 (nice to have both on the same video)..