Per a satire, he topped his previous performance on 20 December.
He announced that he was traveling for Christmas to meet friends and family and would try to wear a disguise to avoid being seen. He 'pre apologized' to anyone who thought he was being hypocritical.
He concluded his remarks by telling people not to travel and avoid gatherings.
I'm not 100% convinced this is satire but I think it more likely than not.
Image (which is probably photo shopped) and story here.
.
Dr. Birx is also the owner of an apparently enormous collection of scarves.
As with many people she has on numerous candidates counseled people to avoid exposure. One part of this is to curtail travel. The week before Thanksgiving she counseled to avoid travel and reduce holiday gatherings to immediate family.
I would give her the benefit of the doubt in this case but I grant it depends on what 'immediate family' means.
The first photo of Dr. Birx and other information is here. The second photo shows some of the other scarves in her collection.
She also is the sponsor of an ordinance that would, essentially, decriminalize many misdemeanors and some felonies on the basis that the offender was poor, oppressed, mentally unstable, addicted, sexually exploited, etc.
A few days ago a rock was thrown through a window at the Herbold house. Herbold called 911.
This is pretty obviously not hypocrisy by my definition.
First, not knowing the identity of the rock thrower, you don't know if the misdemeanor would be non prosecuted under the proposed ordinance.
Second, the ordinance is not yet in effect.
Third, even though the Seattle police have been partially defunded, calling them isn't an act that requires the police to come.
An article on this with many links is here.
The image comes from here.
US Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, a.k.a AOC, has been selling t-shirts that say, "Tax the Rich" for $58.
The first image is AOC greeting fans.
The second is AOC giving a speech (it is from the the article on the 'employee of the month').
The third is of AOC and the t-shirt.
Some have said this is hypocritical.
I don't see it. She didn't say "I am against overpricing messaging T-Shirts. She didn't say, "I am against overpaying for messaging T-Shirts.
The fact that many things AOC says don't make sense doesn't mean they are hypocritical.
By the way, the Goya Food Company recently made AOC their employee of the month because her advocacy of boycotting Goya actually increased sales. This despite AOC not being their employee.
Tweet by AOC is here.
Article here on this using the word 'hypocrisy.
Article on Goya making AOC employee of the month is here.
Steve Adler is the Mayor of Austin Texas (image).
In early November 2020, Mayor Adler hosted a party for his daughter's wedding. It was a relatively small party with 20 or so guests.
As he was in Cabo, Adler put on his facebook page a video asking Austin residents to stay at home if you can.
Adler did not, apparently, host any parties while in Cabo.
Nonetheless, he obviously could have stayed home. I won't give him extra demerit for the video since he was doing 'work' on his vacation and probably thought it was important. He could have defended his actions by saying, "I didn't realize the danger of not staying home until I was actually in Cabo" but that would probably be seen as untrue. So I'll call it hypocrisy.
Story covered by Austin paper is here.
She once played the part of the super smart 'girl next door who has a crush on the star' on Dobie Gillis.
On November 27, Supervisor Kuehl dined al fresco (outside) at a food court. The restaurant providing the food was Il Forno (I haven't been able to find out what she ordered).
A few hours after the meal, Kuehl voted to prohibit outdoor dining in LA county until information from public health officials allows it. She referred to outdoor dining as 'dangerous'.
I don't consider it hypocritical to dine lawfully before it becomes unlawful.
However, saying that the activity is 'dangerous' a few hours after engaging in that activity pushes the issue. Kuehl might defend herself on this by saying that although she social distanced during the meal, others would not. However, I didn't see her employ this defense so I'll consider it hypocrisy.
Information on the dining after voting issue is at this site.
.
Like other doctors he comments on the coronavirus epidemic and tells people to be extra careful, social distance and wear masks when you can't social distance. Recently, he was photographed at a birthday party he organized (for his 31st birthday). No social distancing, no masks but lots of bikini wearing ladies. In the picture with the bikini wearers, he has a light blue hat.
Thirty minutes after posting the tweet, Hancock boarded a plane from Denver to Houston where he then traveled to Mississippi to have thanksgiving with his wife and daughter. The mayor's defense of this is that it was better than having the two of them travel to Denver, thus avoiding their trips.
Of course, he could have just done a virtual gathering as in his tweet.
The story (and similar ones) are at this article at Reason which also embedded the tweet.
He then issued an apology.
"I made a bad mistake," said Newsom. "Instead of sitting down I should have stood up and walked back and got in my car and drove to my house."
"We're all human, we all fall short sometimes,"
Newsom did not use the word 'hypocrisy' or anything similar in his apology, but in any case, it was an actual apology and it was for hypocrisy.
Report on the apology is here.
Another report on this is here.
update: locals report that the party was 20+ people, the wine bill alone was about $12,000
She favors defunding the police.
One day she got a Lyft ride. She asked the driver to raise the car windows. The driver said that city ordinance requires the windows to be open (due to the coronavirus).
Commissioner Hardesty's driver went to a gas station and said she should leave and get another driver. She refused and called 911.
Hardesty does not seem to be a likeable person and being asked to leave a Lyft vehicle does not seem like a 911 event. However, this is not actual hypocrisy because Hardesty didn't say, "I urge people to not use 911."
It is also somewhat like a person using a tax management provision that they think should be abolished. As long as it exists, people who want to use it should use it.
ps: Hardesty got another driver and reached her destination later.
News article is here.
A video of this with an open mike audio has been making the rounds.
At face value it looks like the Governor and Representative were saying we wear masks just to fool the public. However, not having the full context (and I'm not likely to get the full context), I'm not going to call 'hypocrisy' on them.
Local Newspaper report here.
Video with open mike audio is here.
There was a dispute as to whether the Senate should take up the nomination.
In September 2020 after the death of Justice Ginsberg, then President Trump nominated Justice Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Again there was a dispute as to whether the Senate should take up the nomination.
Among those disputing the issues, I have chosen 4 people (I was at one time only going to discuss one person but it makes more sense to discuss a quartet) whose opinions on whether the Senate should vote on confirmation in the 4th or 8th year of a President's term) were as follows:
Senator Lindsey Graham: 2016 Against; 2020 For
Senator Mitch McConnell: 2016 Against; 2020 For
Senator Charles Schumer: 2016 For 2020 Against
former Vice President Biden: 2016 For; 2020 Against (then Senator Biden was against in 1992).
Graham and Biden are in the first image. Schumer and McConnell are in the second image.
I will discuss the Graham opinion change first since it is relatively simple and overtly stated.
Then I will discuss the McConnell opinion which is more complicated.
Regarding Graham: 2016, Senator Graham was specific and said that he opposed a nomination in that year and would oppose a nomination in 2020 (see the collection of quotes link below). In 2020 he had changed his mind and sent a letter (see link below) to various Democratic Senators explaining why. His reasoning was that Democratic smearing of Justice Kavanaugh in 2018 required a the change in position. I don't follow this reasoning as it seems a non sequitur, something like, 'I won't pay you the money I owe you since you insulted me'. However, it may make sense to Graham and I can't find any response from the addressees objecting to the reasoning.
McConnell's 2016 statements regarding the nomination to the SOTUS that year include conditions or caveats. For example, in one statement (the collection of quotes link below) he referred to an appointed by a lame duck (Obama was term limited in 2016, Trump is not term limited in 2020, although he would be a lame duck if he lost the election in November 2020). In another statement (the collection of quotes link below) McConnell notes that in 2016 the President was a Democrat and the Senate was majority Republican (as of this post the President is a Republican and the Senate is also majority Republican). I don't understand this reasoning entirely although it seems to me it has more substance than Graham's reasoning.
This brings me to the Schumer and Biden opinion change. I have been looking for them to defend their opinion change and haven't found any. Neither have I found third party defense of their opinion change nor any reporters who even asked them about it. Now, the focus of the news is the confirmation of Justice Barrett and I suppose there will be no defense of the opinion change.
I would rate all but McConnell as hypocrites to some extent but Schumer and Biden more so since they feel no need to even acknowledge the issue. I would rank Graham as slightly less of a hypocrite than Schumer or Biden as he has a defense even if I don't think it makes sense. I'm giving McConnell a break on this since he does make a substantive case that the two situations are different.
Finally, I acknowledge the Babylon Bee's take on this:
The 1992 position of then Senator Biden is discussed here.
Senator Graham's Letter re 2020 situation is here.
Collection of quotes from 2016 and 2020 is here.
Washington Post OP Ed on this calling McConnell an 'apex predator' is here.
A defense of McConnell is here
Senator Cruz expands on the 'one party holds the Presidency, the other the Senate' reason here.
Babylonbee humor on this is here.
Apparently,
Pelosi contracted with a hairdresser who had a contract with a hair
salon. The hairdresser did shampooing and other tasks in the hair
salon. The local, San Francisco, ordinances do not permit this and in
fact, only on September 1 did the local ordinance allow hair shampooing
in and outside setting. In the image, the hair dresser is wearing a mask
but Pelosi is not.
This is a pretty straightforward case of hypocrisy. I doubt it has much effect however because deBlasio was widely regarded as a stubborn jerk before this. The second image shows a protest at the Mayor's official residence on June 2.
Natalie Martinez is the President of the Los Angeles City Council. She recently gave a speech advocating substantially reduced funding for the LA Police. 
In early May, Daniel dressed as the Grim Reeper at a Florida beach to warn or possibly predict deaths from congregated in groups.
However, Professor Ferguson had a friend, Antonia Staats (she is 38, he is 51) who has visited him a number of times while the country was shut down. She visited him for sex, notwithstanding that both she and Ferguson are married to other people. Staats has defended her action by saying that, first, she is in an open marriage and second, that because of this, the visit is actually being part of the Ferguson family or that the Fergusons and the Staats are one family.
Ruth Marcus (first image) is a columnist for the Washington Post. She also authored a book "Supreme Ambition" which argues that Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth in her testimony regarding, then nominee, now Supreme Court Justice, Judge Brett Kavanaugh (he was a Judge at the point of nomination).
