Nancy Pelosi, Samoa and the Marianas Islands
The new speaker of the House of Representatives is Nancy Pelosi. She had promised, that, if she became speaker, the House would pass legislation raising the minimum wage.
Apparently, this came to pass earlier this week.. There is, however, a little glitch. Apparently the existing minimum wage (which now is $5.15) did not apply to US administered territories, including the Marianas Islands and American Samoa. The legislation passed does apply to the Marianas Islands but not to American Samoa. Businesses in the Marianas Islands are thought to give money to Republican fundraising efforts. American Samoa has a large tuna canning industry. One tuna related company operating in American Samoa is StarKist Tuna, a subsidiary of Del Monte Industries, which has a HQ office in SF (Pelosi's district). The other tuna related company operating in American Samoa is Chicken-of-theSea which has a HQ in California outside Pelosi's district.
Pelosi's office denied that Pelosi had been lobbied by either company to have the minimum wage not apply to American Samoa.
I'll grant you this is sneaky, probably suspicious, maybe even sleazy, but what is the hypocrisy? Did Nancy Pelosi ever say, "The minimum wage should apply everwhere the American Flag flies" or words to that effect. Apparently, the only statements she made were of the "We believe the minimum wage should be raised." variety. Thus, I'm going to give Pelosi a pass unless I get access to more definitive statements.
A headline writer who is more free with the charge of hypocrisy wrote at this site:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm
Monday, December 18, 2006
Democracy Advocates for Hypocrisy
At least that is the accusation of Haaretz writer Schmuel Rosner writing for Slate.
His thesis is, basically that those who advocated democracy as a cure for violence, oppression and corruption in the Arab mideast now advocate, in effect less democracy because they support PA President (and relative moderate) Abbas in his struggle with the parlimentary majority Hamas.
Rosner's article is at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2155722/
Here is some of the article,
"... British Prime Minister Tony Blair, visiting the West Bank on Monday, declared, "If the international community really means what it says about supporting people who share the vision of a two-state solution, who are moderate, who are prepared to shoulder their responsibilities, then now is the time for the international community to respond."
Rosner has a point that the countries that don't like Hamas don't seem to acknowledge that Hamas won an election. However, this isn't hypocrisy. Its more like refusing to face the truth honestly. Notice the quote from PM Blair doesn't actually use the word 'democracy'. Also, Blair never said that "if Hamas wins we will recognize them..." (if he had Rosner would have found the words). This then becomes more of one of the many annoying things about diplomacy rather than hypocrisy.
At least that is the accusation of Haaretz writer Schmuel Rosner writing for Slate.
His thesis is, basically that those who advocated democracy as a cure for violence, oppression and corruption in the Arab mideast now advocate, in effect less democracy because they support PA President (and relative moderate) Abbas in his struggle with the parlimentary majority Hamas.
Rosner's article is at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2155722/
Here is some of the article,
"... British Prime Minister Tony Blair, visiting the West Bank on Monday, declared, "If the international community really means what it says about supporting people who share the vision of a two-state solution, who are moderate, who are prepared to shoulder their responsibilities, then now is the time for the international community to respond."
I'm not sure if Blair thought seriously about this sentence before uttering it—but, in some ways, it captures the essence of the West's real policy—America's too—in the Middle East. Not the rhetoric, the reality: no democracy, no "elected government," no "right of the people to decide" (which they did, in last January's elections). It's the people who are "moderate" and who "support a two-state solution" that deserve the support of Blair and President Bush. And if those moderates lost an election—well, never mind. You can always call for another one, and another one—until the people get the message and elect the desired government."
Well one obvious problem is that if Abbas is calling for new elections, how can supporting Abbas in this case be called hypocrisy?Rosner has a point that the countries that don't like Hamas don't seem to acknowledge that Hamas won an election. However, this isn't hypocrisy. Its more like refusing to face the truth honestly. Notice the quote from PM Blair doesn't actually use the word 'democracy'. Also, Blair never said that "if Hamas wins we will recognize them..." (if he had Rosner would have found the words). This then becomes more of one of the many annoying things about diplomacy rather than hypocrisy.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Supporting Labor Unions
A prominent left wing US website has in essense accused the right wing US of hypocrisy in that the right wing US supports labor unions in foreign countries (specifically a bus driver union in Iran) but opposes labor unions the USA.
The article notes the long history of this activity, for example back in the late 1980s the US supported the Polish Longshoremen Union (Lech Walensa) but in the early 1980s then President Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike.
The accusation is more fully stated at:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/14/the_right_stands_up_for_labor.php
This accusation is another case of insufficient specificity.
Let's take the 1980s. The US supporter the right of Polish Longshormen to form a union and to collectively bargain and, if they didn't reach an agreement, to strike.
On the other hand, President Reagan did not oppose the right of the Air Traffic Controllers to form a union. He did not oppose the right of the ATCs to collectively bargain. However, given that the law prohibited strikes, he opposed their right to strike.
I'm not sure what the Polish law was about striking but during the cold war most Warsaw block countries had very progressive 'on the books' laws that were actually ignored by the government which used emergency decrees.
In the current case the right wing US does not oppose the right to organize or the right to collectively bargain or even the right to strike (except where it is against the law - e.g., firemen). The fact that the right generally opposes closed shops, high minimum wages and the like is simply not the same as the basic rights.
Thus the charge of hypocrisy, without better parallel between societies, is rejected.
A prominent left wing US website has in essense accused the right wing US of hypocrisy in that the right wing US supports labor unions in foreign countries (specifically a bus driver union in Iran) but opposes labor unions the USA.
The article notes the long history of this activity, for example back in the late 1980s the US supported the Polish Longshoremen Union (Lech Walensa) but in the early 1980s then President Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike.
The accusation is more fully stated at:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/14/the_right_stands_up_for_labor.php
This accusation is another case of insufficient specificity.
Let's take the 1980s. The US supporter the right of Polish Longshormen to form a union and to collectively bargain and, if they didn't reach an agreement, to strike.
On the other hand, President Reagan did not oppose the right of the Air Traffic Controllers to form a union. He did not oppose the right of the ATCs to collectively bargain. However, given that the law prohibited strikes, he opposed their right to strike.
I'm not sure what the Polish law was about striking but during the cold war most Warsaw block countries had very progressive 'on the books' laws that were actually ignored by the government which used emergency decrees.
In the current case the right wing US does not oppose the right to organize or the right to collectively bargain or even the right to strike (except where it is against the law - e.g., firemen). The fact that the right generally opposes closed shops, high minimum wages and the like is simply not the same as the basic rights.
Thus the charge of hypocrisy, without better parallel between societies, is rejected.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
John Edwards Again, Walmart Again
Yes former Senator Edwards did appear at that book signing.
He defended the choice of Barnes and Noble over Walmart by citing total compensation (although he didn't use that term) because Barnes and Noble has a better health care plan (or so he says).
He also said that he is not anti Costco the same way he is anti Walmart because Costco employees have higher wages (he didn't refer to any Costco health care plan).
The followup article in the local paper in NH is:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?
headline=John+Edwards+in+NH+promoting+
book+on+homes&articleId=16df404b
-3e60-4537-89ab-80c4d9f0b011
Yes former Senator Edwards did appear at that book signing.
He defended the choice of Barnes and Noble over Walmart by citing total compensation (although he didn't use that term) because Barnes and Noble has a better health care plan (or so he says).
He also said that he is not anti Costco the same way he is anti Walmart because Costco employees have higher wages (he didn't refer to any Costco health care plan).
The followup article in the local paper in NH is:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?
headline=John+Edwards+in+NH+promoting+
book+on+homes&articleId=16df404b
-3e60-4537-89ab-80c4d9f0b011
Monday, November 27, 2006
John Edwards Again; Walmart Again
Tonight, former Senator Edwards is to sign his book in Manchester, NH. He is to do so at a Barnes and Noble. The Barnes and Noble is very near a Walmart. One purpose of the Barnes and Noble signing is to highlight Edwards's disapproval of Walmart. It turns out that, in Manchester, NH at least, the starting salary at Walmart is $7.50 (which is the rate Edwards thinks would be OK as a minimum wage), the starting salary at Barnes and Noble is $7.00.
I don't know the non salary compensation at the two employers (this is fairly difficult to find out and subject to calculational assumptions).
Notwithstanding this, what the information shows is not that Edwards is hypocritical ((he probably assumed that the Manchester, NH Walmart would have low starting wages) but that he is ignorant for local information. Data from the Manchester union leader (newspaper).
Background available at:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2006/11/edwardss_crusade.html
Tonight, former Senator Edwards is to sign his book in Manchester, NH. He is to do so at a Barnes and Noble. The Barnes and Noble is very near a Walmart. One purpose of the Barnes and Noble signing is to highlight Edwards's disapproval of Walmart. It turns out that, in Manchester, NH at least, the starting salary at Walmart is $7.50 (which is the rate Edwards thinks would be OK as a minimum wage), the starting salary at Barnes and Noble is $7.00.
I don't know the non salary compensation at the two employers (this is fairly difficult to find out and subject to calculational assumptions).
Notwithstanding this, what the information shows is not that Edwards is hypocritical ((he probably assumed that the Manchester, NH Walmart would have low starting wages) but that he is ignorant for local information. Data from the Manchester union leader (newspaper).
Background available at:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2006/11/edwardss_crusade.html
Saturday, November 18, 2006
John Edwards, Walmart and the PlayStation3
Several articles have accused former Senator (of NC, a possible future candidate for President) John Edwards as a hypocrite. The story is that Edwards has been on the speakers circuit criticizing Walmart. However, this year, his son wanted a PlayStation3, and it was purchased at Walmart by a Edwards campaign aid.
A longer version of this is at:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116797.html
or
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061116/dath035.html?.v=68
or
http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4611.aspx
or
http://kevinb66.newsvine.com/_news/2006/11/17/445591
-former-senator-john-edwards-turns-to-wal-mart-for-playstation3
In the detailed version it is clear that Edwards did not tell the campaign aid to get the product at Walmart nor to specifically not get the product at Walmart. The aid simply was trying to please his boss. Edwards has also told the story that his son has criticized a classmate for shopping at Walmart. The fact is that the campaign aid is not the same person as Edwards (father or son) and so the Walmart purchase doesn't seem to me to be an example of hypocrisy.
However, Edwards criticism of Walmart is based on his contention that Walmart employees are underpaid (or that their medical coverage is undersubsidized).
Interestingly, the campaign aid is a volunteer - that is, he is paid nothing or close to nothing.
Ah. The hypocrisy is not with the product, its with the compensation.
In Edwards defense, virtually all political campaigns use volunteers and the volunteers sometimes obtain business or professional contacts that have a value far greater than what a $7/hr wage would have been. On the other hand, many, maybe most volunteer campaign aids end up with squat.
In Walmart's defense, no one forces people to work at Walmart and with a national unemployment rate below 5% for the past year or so, the total compensation package at Walmart (which also includes business and professional contacts as well as resume experience) must be fairly attractive since the company keeps increasing its work forces every year.
Bottom line - OK Edwards is a hypocrite but a minor one and not because of the PlayStation3.
Several articles have accused former Senator (of NC, a possible future candidate for President) John Edwards as a hypocrite. The story is that Edwards has been on the speakers circuit criticizing Walmart. However, this year, his son wanted a PlayStation3, and it was purchased at Walmart by a Edwards campaign aid.
A longer version of this is at:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116797.html
or
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061116/dath035.html?.v=68
or
http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4611.aspx
or
http://kevinb66.newsvine.com/_news/2006/11/17/445591
-former-senator-john-edwards-turns-to-wal-mart-for-playstation3
In the detailed version it is clear that Edwards did not tell the campaign aid to get the product at Walmart nor to specifically not get the product at Walmart. The aid simply was trying to please his boss. Edwards has also told the story that his son has criticized a classmate for shopping at Walmart. The fact is that the campaign aid is not the same person as Edwards (father or son) and so the Walmart purchase doesn't seem to me to be an example of hypocrisy.
However, Edwards criticism of Walmart is based on his contention that Walmart employees are underpaid (or that their medical coverage is undersubsidized).
Interestingly, the campaign aid is a volunteer - that is, he is paid nothing or close to nothing.
Ah. The hypocrisy is not with the product, its with the compensation.
In Edwards defense, virtually all political campaigns use volunteers and the volunteers sometimes obtain business or professional contacts that have a value far greater than what a $7/hr wage would have been. On the other hand, many, maybe most volunteer campaign aids end up with squat.
In Walmart's defense, no one forces people to work at Walmart and with a national unemployment rate below 5% for the past year or so, the total compensation package at Walmart (which also includes business and professional contacts as well as resume experience) must be fairly attractive since the company keeps increasing its work forces every year.
Bottom line - OK Edwards is a hypocrite but a minor one and not because of the PlayStation3.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Slate accuses U2 and Bono of hypocrisy
Slate is one of the most popular webzines. It's article on this subject is at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2152580/?nav=tap3
The crux of the argument is that Bono has been a promoter of aid to the third world and now his band (U2) is relocating a part of their business (the most profitable part, the music publishing) from Ireland to the Netherlands to reduce their corporate tax liability.
The basis of the hypocrisy charge is never stated in the article, alas. However, as near as I can tell the charge is that Bono tells nations that they should provide more foreign aid and then reduces the ability of a nation to provide that aid.
Actually, Bono does other things than advocate foreign aid. He advocates reducing trade barriers that adversely affect third world nations. He also advocates debt forgiveness (which is mostly debt that third world nations owe banks). He also advocates requiring drug manufacturers to basically sell their products to third world nations at a loss.
These ideas may be naive, even conterproductive (btw, a lot of people think foreign aid to 3rd world countries has been a net minus to those countries because, for one thing, it allows dictators to buy more police to beat up dissidents) but they don't affect the hypocrisy argument.
Assuming the narrow charge of advocating foreign aid while diminishing the ability of one country (Ireland) to provide foreign aid, the charge of hypocrisy would be at least partly true. However, the country to which he moved his business (the Netherlands) would now be better able to provide the foreign aid. There would presumably a net loss which is why the narrow charge is partly true.
Slate is one of the most popular webzines. It's article on this subject is at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2152580/?nav=tap3
The crux of the argument is that Bono has been a promoter of aid to the third world and now his band (U2) is relocating a part of their business (the most profitable part, the music publishing) from Ireland to the Netherlands to reduce their corporate tax liability.
The basis of the hypocrisy charge is never stated in the article, alas. However, as near as I can tell the charge is that Bono tells nations that they should provide more foreign aid and then reduces the ability of a nation to provide that aid.
Actually, Bono does other things than advocate foreign aid. He advocates reducing trade barriers that adversely affect third world nations. He also advocates debt forgiveness (which is mostly debt that third world nations owe banks). He also advocates requiring drug manufacturers to basically sell their products to third world nations at a loss.
These ideas may be naive, even conterproductive (btw, a lot of people think foreign aid to 3rd world countries has been a net minus to those countries because, for one thing, it allows dictators to buy more police to beat up dissidents) but they don't affect the hypocrisy argument.
Assuming the narrow charge of advocating foreign aid while diminishing the ability of one country (Ireland) to provide foreign aid, the charge of hypocrisy would be at least partly true. However, the country to which he moved his business (the Netherlands) would now be better able to provide the foreign aid. There would presumably a net loss which is why the narrow charge is partly true.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Senator Kerry and the 'botched joke'.
Two days ago, Senator Kerry was campaigning in California (in support of the Democrat candidate for Governor). He was addressing a University related audience. He made the statement,
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
(from a London Times article at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2432208,00.html
a youtube version of the speech is at:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENegT-spXg
His staff released the prepared text which was,
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
As anti-Bush writer for Slate acknowledges, this 'joke' isn't funny even in its prepared text.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152456/?nav=fix
Kerry was accused of insulting American troops. Kerry at first refused to apologize, then apologized to anyone who 'misinterpreted' the joke.
this was the apology
“As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.“
A number of writers have suggested that Kerry meant to insult the troops basing their claim on Kerry's 1972 statements on a questionaire sent him by an antiwar group in which he opposes an all volunteer army because it would be predominently staffed by low income, black, uneducated, etc. (it hasn't turned out that way) and his statements in 1971 (made in testimony at a Congressional hearing) criticizing troops are being killers, rapers, etc.
Kerry's 1971 statements =
They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Kerry's 1972's statements =
Kerry later stated (in 2004) that his 1971 statements were just repetition of what he had heard and that he never saw any atrocities being committed (although in 2006 he said he was proud of the statements and that they were true; indeed some atrocities were committed however many atrocities claimed to have been witnessed by the 'winter soldier' convention attendees were claims of people who had not been in combat or even in the armed forces).
He has never said anything about his 1972 statement.
Personally, I think we have a schizoid situation. One part of Senator Kerry surely realizes that the troops in Iraq are pretty well educated (virtually all HS educated and many with undergraduate and graduate degrees). However, another part of Kerry still clings to his 1972 theory; he has never acknowledged being wrong about the all volunteer army. It is still an talking point among antiwar speakers that blacks (or hispanics, or low income whites, etc.) are cannon fodder. So, a part of Kerry meant to insult the troops. However, that was not the part of him that apologized so I don't think its a good case of hypocrisy.
The non hypocrisy points here are actually more interesting.
1. Kerry badly botched a poorly written joke that was suppose to make fun of President Bush's lack of intellect. However, the botch job followed by the refusel to apologize followed by the apology seems to suggest that, at least in this case, it is Kerry who has a lack of intellect.
2. Kerry's behavior in this case is best explained by vanity rather than hypocrisy. He could have simply released the prepared remarks as soon as he was criticized and said, "I meant to say that." However, to do so would have been to admit that he didn't write his own jokes and furthermore couldn't recognize the joke was bad and worse yet, botched the joke his staff had written for him. If, as has been alledged, Kerry is incredibly vain, such admissions would have been very painful for him causing him to try to find other ways around this problem.
3. In the apology, Kerry uses the word 'troop' in a way that makes it hard to know what he means. He also uses the word 'imply' when I think he means 'infer'. He also can't legitimately claim to 'personally apologize'; he means, I think, 'collectively apologize'.
Two days ago, Senator Kerry was campaigning in California (in support of the Democrat candidate for Governor). He was addressing a University related audience. He made the statement,
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
(from a London Times article at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2432208,00.html
a youtube version of the speech is at:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENegT-spXg
His staff released the prepared text which was,
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
As anti-Bush writer for Slate acknowledges, this 'joke' isn't funny even in its prepared text.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152456/?nav=fix
Kerry was accused of insulting American troops. Kerry at first refused to apologize, then apologized to anyone who 'misinterpreted' the joke.
this was the apology
“As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.“
A number of writers have suggested that Kerry meant to insult the troops basing their claim on Kerry's 1972 statements on a questionaire sent him by an antiwar group in which he opposes an all volunteer army because it would be predominently staffed by low income, black, uneducated, etc. (it hasn't turned out that way) and his statements in 1971 (made in testimony at a Congressional hearing) criticizing troops are being killers, rapers, etc.
Kerry's 1971 statements =
They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Kerry's 1972's statements =
"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown,"
"We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'
"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities,.."Kerry later stated (in 2004) that his 1971 statements were just repetition of what he had heard and that he never saw any atrocities being committed (although in 2006 he said he was proud of the statements and that they were true; indeed some atrocities were committed however many atrocities claimed to have been witnessed by the 'winter soldier' convention attendees were claims of people who had not been in combat or even in the armed forces).
He has never said anything about his 1972 statement.
Personally, I think we have a schizoid situation. One part of Senator Kerry surely realizes that the troops in Iraq are pretty well educated (virtually all HS educated and many with undergraduate and graduate degrees). However, another part of Kerry still clings to his 1972 theory; he has never acknowledged being wrong about the all volunteer army. It is still an talking point among antiwar speakers that blacks (or hispanics, or low income whites, etc.) are cannon fodder. So, a part of Kerry meant to insult the troops. However, that was not the part of him that apologized so I don't think its a good case of hypocrisy.
The non hypocrisy points here are actually more interesting.
1. Kerry badly botched a poorly written joke that was suppose to make fun of President Bush's lack of intellect. However, the botch job followed by the refusel to apologize followed by the apology seems to suggest that, at least in this case, it is Kerry who has a lack of intellect.
2. Kerry's behavior in this case is best explained by vanity rather than hypocrisy. He could have simply released the prepared remarks as soon as he was criticized and said, "I meant to say that." However, to do so would have been to admit that he didn't write his own jokes and furthermore couldn't recognize the joke was bad and worse yet, botched the joke his staff had written for him. If, as has been alledged, Kerry is incredibly vain, such admissions would have been very painful for him causing him to try to find other ways around this problem.
3. In the apology, Kerry uses the word 'troop' in a way that makes it hard to know what he means. He also uses the word 'imply' when I think he means 'infer'. He also can't legitimately claim to 'personally apologize'; he means, I think, 'collectively apologize'.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Senator Burns has a couplet.
From the website of Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT), in the second paragraph is this couplet:
"...With a seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Burns has been able to bring in over $2 billion in federal funds to the state since he took office. He has been a champion of a fiscally conservative government and a strong voice for lower taxes to create new businesses and more jobs."
It is nice that the first sentence seems to say, "Hey I'm great at pork barrel projects" and the second says, "Hey I'm fiscally responsible". It is not uncommon to have contradictions in a long narrative, but it is relatively uncommon to have a contradiction in consecutive sentences.
This would be obvious hypocrisy except that Senator Burns perhaps thinks that his pork barrel projects are actually good projects (I'm making the ordinary assuption that these port barrel projects are bad projects since the reason for such projects is that no county, municipality, state or private entity would fund them). This would take a remarkable feat of intentional ignorance or of intentional disregarding of evidence (I don't have a list of those projects: Senator Burns doesn't give them probably with good reason since the names alone would condemn the projects).
In sum, the alternatives are:
1. the MT pork barrel projects are actually good projects.
2. Senator Burns is a hypocrite (probably about a leve 3)
3. Senator Burns is intentionally ignorant about the projects he believes to be good.
4. Senator Burns intentionally is disregarding evidence about the projects.
Senator Burn's website (at least as of today) is at:
http://burns.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.BurnsBackground
From the website of Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT), in the second paragraph is this couplet:
"...With a seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Burns has been able to bring in over $2 billion in federal funds to the state since he took office. He has been a champion of a fiscally conservative government and a strong voice for lower taxes to create new businesses and more jobs."
It is nice that the first sentence seems to say, "Hey I'm great at pork barrel projects" and the second says, "Hey I'm fiscally responsible". It is not uncommon to have contradictions in a long narrative, but it is relatively uncommon to have a contradiction in consecutive sentences.
This would be obvious hypocrisy except that Senator Burns perhaps thinks that his pork barrel projects are actually good projects (I'm making the ordinary assuption that these port barrel projects are bad projects since the reason for such projects is that no county, municipality, state or private entity would fund them). This would take a remarkable feat of intentional ignorance or of intentional disregarding of evidence (I don't have a list of those projects: Senator Burns doesn't give them probably with good reason since the names alone would condemn the projects).
In sum, the alternatives are:
1. the MT pork barrel projects are actually good projects.
2. Senator Burns is a hypocrite (probably about a leve 3)
3. Senator Burns is intentionally ignorant about the projects he believes to be good.
4. Senator Burns intentionally is disregarding evidence about the projects.
Senator Burn's website (at least as of today) is at:
http://burns.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.BurnsBackground
Thursday, October 12, 2006
More on former Representative Foley
Some people are saying that the Democrats are being hypocrites for criticizing the Republicans for not stopping Foley's page-seeking. Unfortunately for analysis, it is obvious that there is not a unified Democratic response to this. The charge is also made that when former Representative Studds (of Massachusetts) actually had an affair with a 17 year old male page (iin 83), it was covered up for 10 years and he only received a reprimand (rather than censure or being expelled). The point is somewhat valid however the people around in 83-93 are mostly not the same people around now and those who are may have changed their mind about what is, and isn't ethical.
To really get a read on what the Democrats are thinking would require someone in about the same position as Foley doing about the same thing as Foley about the same time.
The nearest thing to a Foley is the case of Representative Jefferson (of Louisiana) who has been charged with various crimes (bribery, extortion, etc.). His freezer was found to contain $90k in recently obtained cash. He still serves in the House but has had to resign from one of the House committees (Foley resigned his seat in the House completely).
Some people are saying that the Democrats are being hypocrites for criticizing the Republicans for not stopping Foley's page-seeking. Unfortunately for analysis, it is obvious that there is not a unified Democratic response to this. The charge is also made that when former Representative Studds (of Massachusetts) actually had an affair with a 17 year old male page (iin 83), it was covered up for 10 years and he only received a reprimand (rather than censure or being expelled). The point is somewhat valid however the people around in 83-93 are mostly not the same people around now and those who are may have changed their mind about what is, and isn't ethical.
To really get a read on what the Democrats are thinking would require someone in about the same position as Foley doing about the same thing as Foley about the same time.
The nearest thing to a Foley is the case of Representative Jefferson (of Louisiana) who has been charged with various crimes (bribery, extortion, etc.). His freezer was found to contain $90k in recently obtained cash. He still serves in the House but has had to resign from one of the House committees (Foley resigned his seat in the House completely).
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Good Hypocrisy and Former Representative Mark Foley
Yesterday, Congressman Mark Foley resigned subsequent to press reports that he had sent pedophilic (I would write creepy pedophilic but I think that might be redundant) emails and IMs to male high schoolers and pages. It seems that Mark Foley has for some time been on the House Missing and Exploited Children's caucas and co-authored legislation some years ago to control virtual child pornography. An article from 2002 explains that the legislation was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to the dismay of then Congressman Foley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/national/17CHIL.html?ex=1159934400&en=79b2c6a371c7fb10&ei=5070
Now lets suppose that Congressman Foley co-authored and supported legislation that would have made the emails and IMs he sent illegal (actually I don't think it did). Thus he would have been doing something he denounced, i.e., acted hypocritically.
However, it may be that Mr. Foley's role in the prohibition of virtual pornography was motivated by the self awareness that he was attracted by underage men (or boys). Actually, I think is probable. He thus was, in effect, trying to legislate in hopes of protecting society from himself. If so, this is not just a harmless hypocrisy but an actual good hypocrisy.
Yesterday, Congressman Mark Foley resigned subsequent to press reports that he had sent pedophilic (I would write creepy pedophilic but I think that might be redundant) emails and IMs to male high schoolers and pages. It seems that Mark Foley has for some time been on the House Missing and Exploited Children's caucas and co-authored legislation some years ago to control virtual child pornography. An article from 2002 explains that the legislation was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to the dismay of then Congressman Foley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/national/17CHIL.html?ex=1159934400&en=79b2c6a371c7fb10&ei=5070
Now lets suppose that Congressman Foley co-authored and supported legislation that would have made the emails and IMs he sent illegal (actually I don't think it did). Thus he would have been doing something he denounced, i.e., acted hypocritically.
However, it may be that Mr. Foley's role in the prohibition of virtual pornography was motivated by the self awareness that he was attracted by underage men (or boys). Actually, I think is probable. He thus was, in effect, trying to legislate in hopes of protecting society from himself. If so, this is not just a harmless hypocrisy but an actual good hypocrisy.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
The Road to 9-11 vs. Farenheit 9-11: 2nd Post
Well, "The Road to 9-11" did show on TV. Some scenes were cut but some of the very scenes that Clinton Administration officials complained about were left in.
The movie disparaged both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration but more so the former as they were in office for 8 years and the Bush Administration was just getting started at the time of the 9-11 atrocities. No Bush Administration people complained.
The problem with analyzing hypocrisy here is that I'm not sure which former Clinton Administration people defended Farenheit 9-11 and which didn't. I suppose this could be a matter of research but I don't have time to do it.
Somepeople have said that the Democratic Party as a whole condemned "The Road..." but embraced "Farenheit...". While the latter of these may be reasonable, after all Michael Moore did get an honored seat at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I can find no evidence of the former.
Thus, not having time for the research, I'm going to have to pass on this issue.
However, the fact that a number of Democratic Senators threatened ABC with license suspension in the "The Road... " case is truly disgusting.
Well, "The Road to 9-11" did show on TV. Some scenes were cut but some of the very scenes that Clinton Administration officials complained about were left in.
The movie disparaged both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration but more so the former as they were in office for 8 years and the Bush Administration was just getting started at the time of the 9-11 atrocities. No Bush Administration people complained.
The problem with analyzing hypocrisy here is that I'm not sure which former Clinton Administration people defended Farenheit 9-11 and which didn't. I suppose this could be a matter of research but I don't have time to do it.
Somepeople have said that the Democratic Party as a whole condemned "The Road..." but embraced "Farenheit...". While the latter of these may be reasonable, after all Michael Moore did get an honored seat at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I can find no evidence of the former.
Thus, not having time for the research, I'm going to have to pass on this issue.
However, the fact that a number of Democratic Senators threatened ABC with license suspension in the "The Road... " case is truly disgusting.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The Road to 9-11 vs. Farenheit 9-11
ABC is, as of today, scheduled to air a docudrama about the period leading up to the 9-11 atrocities. The docudrama uses various public reports as background as well as additional material. It compresses the timeline, merges characters, etc. much as other docudramas (e.g., the Great Escape). Numerous officials who served in the Clinton Administration (notably Madelaine Albright, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton himself), have either asked ABC to cancel the docudrama, change the docudrama, etc.
I don't remember anyone in the Democratic Party asking Michael Moore to cancel or change his docudrama (which self classified itself as a documentary) "Farenheit 9-11".
"The Road to 9-11" hasn't aired yet. I'll wait to pass judgement until then. As of now, it is still an open issue.
However, there are a few differences between the two events right off the bat.
Farenheit 9-11 was made by a company that did not use the federally regulated airwaves. Farenheit 9-11 did not have a disclaimer (indeed, it claimed to be a documentary). Michael Moore sat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention; however, Mr. Carter is not among the Democrats criticizing "The Road to 9-11".
ABC is, as of today, scheduled to air a docudrama about the period leading up to the 9-11 atrocities. The docudrama uses various public reports as background as well as additional material. It compresses the timeline, merges characters, etc. much as other docudramas (e.g., the Great Escape). Numerous officials who served in the Clinton Administration (notably Madelaine Albright, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton himself), have either asked ABC to cancel the docudrama, change the docudrama, etc.
I don't remember anyone in the Democratic Party asking Michael Moore to cancel or change his docudrama (which self classified itself as a documentary) "Farenheit 9-11".
"The Road to 9-11" hasn't aired yet. I'll wait to pass judgement until then. As of now, it is still an open issue.
However, there are a few differences between the two events right off the bat.
Farenheit 9-11 was made by a company that did not use the federally regulated airwaves. Farenheit 9-11 did not have a disclaimer (indeed, it claimed to be a documentary). Michael Moore sat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention; however, Mr. Carter is not among the Democrats criticizing "The Road to 9-11".
Monday, August 28, 2006
Gunter Grass - social critic, novelist, Nobel Prize Winner (1999-Literature) ex- Waffen SS recruit
Gunter Grass has stated that he was drafted into the Waffen SS at the age of 17 (in 1944).
There is some doubt as to whether the Waffen SS actually drafted recruits and Grass is planning an autobiographic that may cast some additional light on this (Grass was captured by the 3rd infantry division and told them he was a member of a Panzer division).
The interesting thing here is to what extent, if any, Grass is a hypocrite given his social criticism (from a left wing position). Grass criticized all rightist policies in W. Germany (including the annexation of E. Germany). He avoided all criticism of the Soviet Union, E. Germany and the Stassi except as he compared them to the West (they were less bad in his opinion.
One of the amusing things Grass did was criticise former President Reagan for visiting the Bitburg cemetary and for implying that many German's served the Reich unwillingly.
Grass's current claim of being drafted into the Waffen SS seems to be ironic in this regard as is all his anti Western social criticism.
Assuming Grass is correct in this it is also a slam dunk piece of hypocrisy. We'll have to wait and see (we may never know) whether Grass's "I was drafted into the Waffen SS" is true.
As an interesting by-the-way, Salman Rushdie is defending Grass (who is evidently a friend of his see:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1852419,00.html
)
Gunter Grass has stated that he was drafted into the Waffen SS at the age of 17 (in 1944).
There is some doubt as to whether the Waffen SS actually drafted recruits and Grass is planning an autobiographic that may cast some additional light on this (Grass was captured by the 3rd infantry division and told them he was a member of a Panzer division).
The interesting thing here is to what extent, if any, Grass is a hypocrite given his social criticism (from a left wing position). Grass criticized all rightist policies in W. Germany (including the annexation of E. Germany). He avoided all criticism of the Soviet Union, E. Germany and the Stassi except as he compared them to the West (they were less bad in his opinion.
One of the amusing things Grass did was criticise former President Reagan for visiting the Bitburg cemetary and for implying that many German's served the Reich unwillingly.
Grass's current claim of being drafted into the Waffen SS seems to be ironic in this regard as is all his anti Western social criticism.
Assuming Grass is correct in this it is also a slam dunk piece of hypocrisy. We'll have to wait and see (we may never know) whether Grass's "I was drafted into the Waffen SS" is true.
As an interesting by-the-way, Salman Rushdie is defending Grass (who is evidently a friend of his see:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1852419,00.html
)
Friday, June 30, 2006
Star Jones vs Barb Walters: Qui es muy Hipócrita?
I saw a film clip of Ms. Walters last night saying, essentially, that Star Jones Reynolds (who was in fact fired from the View) should have left with dignity by finding another job and pretending to be moving up.
I saw a film clip of Ms. Walters last night saying, essentially, that Star Jones Reynolds (who was in fact fired from the View) should have left with dignity by finding another job and pretending to be moving up.
Here is an excerpt from People Magazine:
...she [Walters] felt "betrayed" by Reynolds's... "My [Reynolds] contract was not renewed for the tenth season...I feel like I was fired." Reynolds added that she got the news her contract wouldn't be renewed [about 90 days before the 'betray' comment]... Walters elaborated on the controversy: "We didn’t expect her to make this statement yesterday. She gave us no warning." Walters then went on to explain that Reynolds had known "for months" that she would not be returning in the fall, and that the network had given her time to exit the show with "dignity."... I[Walters said to her [Reynolds], "Handle this any way you want. You can say anything about a new job, you can say anything about a new road. Whatever you say, we'll back you up. We will never say that your contract was not renewed.'"
This is essentially Walters advising Ms Reynolds to be a hypocrite (or a liar) and being condescending about it at the same time.
Of course, Star is accusing Ms. Walters of hypocrisy but in truth Ms. Walters was sincere in advising Star to lie because Walters apparently believes that, in show biz, maybe elsewhere, lying is OK.
In short, this is a cat fight; not a hypocrisy fight (although Ms Walters makes me want to vomit).
Popsuger has a brief post on the Star vs Walters fight with a huge number of informed comments following it at: http://popsugar.com/8484
The People article is at: http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1208160,00.html?cid=recirc-top5-1-1208160
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Pro-turtle, ecofriendly - self proclaimed hypocrite
A man named Michael Martino lives in Florida. He has a specialty license plate that reads "Helping Sea Turtles Survive". He has had two homes destroyed by hurricane (Ivan in 2004, Dennis in 2005). He supports sand dredging by the US Army Corps of Engineers to protect his home (and others) from another storm but it is mating season, or soon will be, for turtles.
The full article is at:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/26/State/Endangered_turtles_th.shtml
Actually, the USCOE takes a number of steps to avoid or minimize damage to turtles, but, of course can not guarantee a 'no-turtle-killed' outcome.
Mr. Martino may have another reason to not want to kill turtles. If a mating turtle is killed and the USCOE observes it, the USCOE will have to suspend the dredging.
From the article, I'm not sure what Mr. Martino's actual motivation is. However, the fact that he likes sea turtles and the fact he wants his home protected at some risk to sea turtles (although I think a rather minimal risk) are not inconsistent. He may simply like his home more than sea turtles.
If so, one may ask, why not have a bumper sticker that says, "I love my home."
The reason is that most people love their home. The message would be insipid.
I'm afraid I don't have nearly enough information to support Mr. Martino's claim to hypocrisy.
A man named Michael Martino lives in Florida. He has a specialty license plate that reads "Helping Sea Turtles Survive". He has had two homes destroyed by hurricane (Ivan in 2004, Dennis in 2005). He supports sand dredging by the US Army Corps of Engineers to protect his home (and others) from another storm but it is mating season, or soon will be, for turtles.
The full article is at:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/26/State/Endangered_turtles_th.shtml
Actually, the USCOE takes a number of steps to avoid or minimize damage to turtles, but, of course can not guarantee a 'no-turtle-killed' outcome.
Mr. Martino may have another reason to not want to kill turtles. If a mating turtle is killed and the USCOE observes it, the USCOE will have to suspend the dredging.
From the article, I'm not sure what Mr. Martino's actual motivation is. However, the fact that he likes sea turtles and the fact he wants his home protected at some risk to sea turtles (although I think a rather minimal risk) are not inconsistent. He may simply like his home more than sea turtles.
If so, one may ask, why not have a bumper sticker that says, "I love my home."
The reason is that most people love their home. The message would be insipid.
I'm afraid I don't have nearly enough information to support Mr. Martino's claim to hypocrisy.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Radiohead's Thom Yorke: self proclaimed hypocrite
The band "Radiohead" has performed at some environmental events and one of its members, Thom Yorke, is an environmental activists.
In an article at:
http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/yorke%20im%20an%20environmental%20hypocrite_1000208
Yorke proclaims himself a hypocrite, "...The whole apparatus of big festivals is not cool. If we could go to them and say, you can only use paper cups, you can't use generators, you have to use solar panels.... You technically can't make it happen. That stresses me out, because I am a hypocrite. As we all are."
I have a bit of a trouble understanding this because I'm not entirely sure what Mr. Yorke actually advocates. I'll assume for argument's sake that he advocates less consumption of fossil fuel. Assume also that Radiohead flys from venue to venue via corporate jet which renders him consuming fossi fuel at far greater than the normal per capita rate. If so, then he clearly is a hypocrite.
Oddly however, he think paper cups are environmentally benign. Apparently he doesn't understand that trees have to be cut down, processed, etc. and the cups transported to the venue. Thus, I would say his hypocrisy is mitigated somewhat by his ignorance and doesn't rise to a high harm.
The band "Radiohead" has performed at some environmental events and one of its members, Thom Yorke, is an environmental activists.
In an article at:
http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/yorke%20im%20an%20environmental%20hypocrite_1000208
Yorke proclaims himself a hypocrite, "...The whole apparatus of big festivals is not cool. If we could go to them and say, you can only use paper cups, you can't use generators, you have to use solar panels.... You technically can't make it happen. That stresses me out, because I am a hypocrite. As we all are."
I have a bit of a trouble understanding this because I'm not entirely sure what Mr. Yorke actually advocates. I'll assume for argument's sake that he advocates less consumption of fossil fuel. Assume also that Radiohead flys from venue to venue via corporate jet which renders him consuming fossi fuel at far greater than the normal per capita rate. If so, then he clearly is a hypocrite.
Oddly however, he think paper cups are environmentally benign. Apparently he doesn't understand that trees have to be cut down, processed, etc. and the cups transported to the venue. Thus, I would say his hypocrisy is mitigated somewhat by his ignorance and doesn't rise to a high harm.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Redefining Hypocrisy - What's that all about?
There was a opinion piece in a webzine, entitled, "Redefining HypocrisyReason No. 366 why people don’t take Congress seriously."
The URL for the opinion piece is at the bottom of this post.
In the piece, the author accuses Congress of being hypocritical with respect to the issue of the FBI search of the congressional office of U.S. Representative Jefferson (D-LA). This search took place about 9 months after a search of the home of Rep Jefferson resulted in the discovery of $90k in $100 bills wrapped in plastic and stored in the freezer (definitely cold cash). This was the first such search of a Congressional office in 100 years (probably longer).
The author (named Bryan Cunningham, who is a practising attorney in Colorado but who worked for the Clinton administration as assistant counsel to the CIA), has a pretty involved argument but it boils down to this:
1. Congress claims that the Executive Branch is preventing Congress from doing its job (i.e., violating the separation of powers doctrine) by having Rep Jefferson's office searched.
2. Congress is preventing the Executive Branch from doing its job by challenging the NSA monitoring of phone calls between US numbers and terrorist numbers overseas.
Thus hypocrisy.
The first part of the argument (#1 above) seems fairly solid.
The second part is quite a stretch. In fact, Congress (or at least some members) would certainly argue that their action re; the NSA searches is preventing the executive branch from doing thing that aren't its job. Now that arguement may be flawed, but it would seem it is none the less clearly believed by at least some in Congress.
Thus #2 is not certain and hypocrisy is not proved.
I'm not sure what the phrase 'redefined' means in the title.
source of article at:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU2NDdiNDk3NzQzYTc2NGQ4OTA3N2VkNGI0MGZiZjY=
There was a opinion piece in a webzine, entitled, "Redefining HypocrisyReason No. 366 why people don’t take Congress seriously."
The URL for the opinion piece is at the bottom of this post.
In the piece, the author accuses Congress of being hypocritical with respect to the issue of the FBI search of the congressional office of U.S. Representative Jefferson (D-LA). This search took place about 9 months after a search of the home of Rep Jefferson resulted in the discovery of $90k in $100 bills wrapped in plastic and stored in the freezer (definitely cold cash). This was the first such search of a Congressional office in 100 years (probably longer).
The author (named Bryan Cunningham, who is a practising attorney in Colorado but who worked for the Clinton administration as assistant counsel to the CIA), has a pretty involved argument but it boils down to this:
1. Congress claims that the Executive Branch is preventing Congress from doing its job (i.e., violating the separation of powers doctrine) by having Rep Jefferson's office searched.
2. Congress is preventing the Executive Branch from doing its job by challenging the NSA monitoring of phone calls between US numbers and terrorist numbers overseas.
Thus hypocrisy.
The first part of the argument (#1 above) seems fairly solid.
The second part is quite a stretch. In fact, Congress (or at least some members) would certainly argue that their action re; the NSA searches is preventing the executive branch from doing thing that aren't its job. Now that arguement may be flawed, but it would seem it is none the less clearly believed by at least some in Congress.
Thus #2 is not certain and hypocrisy is not proved.
I'm not sure what the phrase 'redefined' means in the title.
source of article at:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU2NDdiNDk3NzQzYTc2NGQ4OTA3N2VkNGI0MGZiZjY=
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Blogger hypocrisy in currency advertisements?
An amusing thing happened to one of the authors of the Powerline blog.
Their url is: http://powerlineblog.com/
In the information for May 16, 2006, one of the authors, John Hinderaker reports that he was critized by the authors of a blog called, Blogcritics, whose url is: http://blogcritics.org.
One post on blogcritics posts at: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/16/124639.php
has a paragraph saying
"...So the question remains, what are John Hinderaker and Co. doing pimping a currency scam [investing in Iraqi diner] on their website? I'm aware that blogads are automated to a degree, but the gentlemen at Power Line are ultimately responsible for what they're hawking "
Well actually, the blogads are almost completely automated. So automated that the same 'invest in Iraqi diner' ad that appeared on the powerline blog also appears in the blogcritics post which criticises the powerline blog. Powerline saved a screenshot on their May 16 post.
by the way, one of the 'invest in Iraqi diner' ads takes you to this url: http://www.safedinar.com/?campaign=google&source=google_CM&kw=iraq_dinar_exchange_rate
Now to the question, 'is this hypocrisy on the part of the blogcritics'?
Well the threshold question is whether the blogcritics poster was actually so ignorant that he didn't understand blogads. This seems improbable given the subtitle on the blogcritic home page says that it is:
A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, technology, and politics.
On the other hand, if the poster is that ignorant, the subtitle is the hypocritical piece.
So regarding hypocrisy; guilty as charged.
On the level of the hypocrisy, it must be considered as minimal because anyone ignorant of blogads gets educated pretty quickly. In fact, the blogcritics have, to an extent, already inflicted considerable damage on whatever credibility they had before the Iraqi diner incident.
An amusing thing happened to one of the authors of the Powerline blog.
Their url is: http://powerlineblog.com/
In the information for May 16, 2006, one of the authors, John Hinderaker reports that he was critized by the authors of a blog called, Blogcritics, whose url is: http://blogcritics.org.
One post on blogcritics posts at: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/16/124639.php
has a paragraph saying
"...So the question remains, what are John Hinderaker and Co. doing pimping a currency scam [investing in Iraqi diner] on their website? I'm aware that blogads are automated to a degree, but the gentlemen at Power Line are ultimately responsible for what they're hawking "
Well actually, the blogads are almost completely automated. So automated that the same 'invest in Iraqi diner' ad that appeared on the powerline blog also appears in the blogcritics post which criticises the powerline blog. Powerline saved a screenshot on their May 16 post.
by the way, one of the 'invest in Iraqi diner' ads takes you to this url: http://www.safedinar.com/?campaign=google&source=google_CM&kw=iraq_dinar_exchange_rate
Now to the question, 'is this hypocrisy on the part of the blogcritics'?
Well the threshold question is whether the blogcritics poster was actually so ignorant that he didn't understand blogads. This seems improbable given the subtitle on the blogcritic home page says that it is:
A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, technology, and politics.
On the other hand, if the poster is that ignorant, the subtitle is the hypocritical piece.
So regarding hypocrisy; guilty as charged.
On the level of the hypocrisy, it must be considered as minimal because anyone ignorant of blogads gets educated pretty quickly. In fact, the blogcritics have, to an extent, already inflicted considerable damage on whatever credibility they had before the Iraqi diner incident.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Hillary is accused of Hypocrisy
The headline for a day of letters to the editor of the NY Post reads, "Clinton's Gen. Y Charge: Six Figure Hypocrisy
The article is at: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/68534.htm
I pretty sure the NY Post is interpreting the letter writers as accusing Hillary of hypocrisy. However, I'm not at all sure I know what the hypocrisy is. Two things are sure, Hillary said something at a college commencement speech about kids not willing to work hard or something like that. Another thing that is sure is that Chelsea works at a management firm and earns over $100k.
We don't know whether Chelsea works hard or not.
What I also don't know is what Chelsea has to do with 'kids not willing to work hard'. Chelsea isn't a kid - she is a grown up, almost 30.
Unfortunately, this is yet another case where I can't figure out what the hypocrisy is supposed to be, never mind analyzing it to see if it is true.
The headline for a day of letters to the editor of the NY Post reads, "Clinton's Gen. Y Charge: Six Figure Hypocrisy
The article is at: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/68534.htm
I pretty sure the NY Post is interpreting the letter writers as accusing Hillary of hypocrisy. However, I'm not at all sure I know what the hypocrisy is. Two things are sure, Hillary said something at a college commencement speech about kids not willing to work hard or something like that. Another thing that is sure is that Chelsea works at a management firm and earns over $100k.
We don't know whether Chelsea works hard or not.
What I also don't know is what Chelsea has to do with 'kids not willing to work hard'. Chelsea isn't a kid - she is a grown up, almost 30.
Unfortunately, this is yet another case where I can't figure out what the hypocrisy is supposed to be, never mind analyzing it to see if it is true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)