Senator Vitter, Larry Flynt and Madame Palfrey
Rick Moran, a sometimes columnist (he lives in Illinois, has written a good bit and is generally identified with Republicans), has an essay online entitled, "hypocrisy all around".
It is about the facts concerning a escort/prostitution business operated by Madame Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
Relevant undisputed facts:
Palfrey admits that some of her 30 or so employees (all women, one a college professor) engaged in sex for money (it is unknown which women did sex for money and which did not)
One of the clients of the business was Senator David Vitter (R- LA). Senator Vitter has acknowledged wrongdoing (but not criminal wrongdoing) and confessed to his wife and God. Senator Vitter is an advocate of family values, an opponent of homosexual marriate and an opponent of sex before marriage (presumably also a opponent of sex outside of marriage).
Larry Flynt, editor of Hustler (a magazine which not only has nudity but pictures violent, S&M and B&D sexual acts) has offered money to people willing to expose politicians and has said he will expose appropriate individuals (since Mr. Flynt is known to be a partisen Democrat), people assume he will expose only Republicans).
So Senator Vitter has done something he has told others not to do. Does this make him a hypocrite? My answer is Yes (although there is a contrarian view of hypocrisy that says that this is only a case of personel weakness). Assuming it is hypocrisy is it a big deal. I would say, No (I assume the sex here is consentual). Senator Vitter is away from home a great deal and, no doubt, has desires typical of someone his age and health.
Is Larry Flynt a hypocrite (for exposing people he disagrees with for doing things he doesn't disagree with)? This is pretty complex but I think Flynt here is not specifically saying Vitter shouldn't have sex outside of marriage (or thinking it). Flynt's actions are sleazy and disgusting but not, as I understand the term, hypocritical (although Moran thinks so).
Moran's article is at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/hypocrisy_all_around.php
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Rock Groups accuses earth-aid Rock concert of Hypocrisy
The Rock Group "Arctic Monkeys" stepped into the Global Warming debate, with among other things the following:
"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.
"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.
Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"
As it turns out, the organizers of the Earth-Aid concert are going to buy carbon offsets after calculating their carbon footprint.
All this and more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705025637.vyh5u7g0&show_article=1
The Rock Group "Arctic Monkeys" stepped into the Global Warming debate, with among other things the following:
"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.
"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.
Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"
As it turns out, the organizers of the Earth-Aid concert are going to buy carbon offsets after calculating their carbon footprint.
All this and more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705025637.vyh5u7g0&show_article=1
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Hillary on the Libby Sentence Commutation
Senator Hillary Clinton issued this statement from her official "Hillary for President" website:
7/2/2007
Statement of Hillary Clinton on Libby Commutation
Senator Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:
"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
This website is:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2271
This statement brings up the issue of what Hillary said when her Husband was issuing pardons.
There were a lot of pardons (a pardon is a stronger measure than a commutation of sentence).
The official list of pardons is on the US Dept of Justice Website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
Here is what Marc Rich was pardoned for (in 2001 just before leaving office):
Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
and here is what the Gregories (husband and wife members of the Puerto Rican Terrorist group FALN - there were others in the group) were pardoned for (march 15, 2000):
Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, etc.
Hillary did not denounce most of her husband's pardons (in fact at the time there was suspicion that these pardons were a form of vote buying since the Puerto Rican vote is substantial in NY and Hillary was running for Senate in NY at the time. She did, specifically endorse the FALN pardons, although the NYTimes (and others, including some who are criticizing the Libby commutation) defended these pardons at the time see:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DD143DF93AA3575AC0A96F958260
So let's run through the possibilities:
1 - Hillary didn't have an opinion of the Clinton Pardons, does now but isnt' saying
2 - Hillary favored the Clinton Pardons (at least the FALN ones, even if she says now she didn't and even if at the time she issued mealy mouth comments on those pardons) and still does but isn't saying
3 - Hillary was against the Clinton Pardons but didn't say so then
4 - Hillary was for the Clinton Pardons but isn't anymore
So many posibilities.
I personally think #2 is correct and if so, she is guilty of hypocrisy in that she thinks political pardons are OK but says otherwise (unless you posit that political pardons of Puerto Rican terrorists is OK but commuting the sentence of Republican perjurers isn't - an interesting argument would have to be made). One could hope some reporter will ask the appropriate hard questions but probably Hillary won't allow such questions so we will never know - alas since I personally think it is important to know whether a Presidential candidate thinks the FALN pardons are OK.
This same argument could be made in much less stark form for Sen Edwards and Sen Obama. Edwards was elected Senator from NC in 1994 so he was new to the job during the Clinton pardons. Obama was just a State Senator in 2000 and wasn't elected to the US Senate until 2004.
Senator Hillary Clinton issued this statement from her official "Hillary for President" website:
7/2/2007
Statement of Hillary Clinton on Libby Commutation
Senator Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:
"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
This website is:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2271
This statement brings up the issue of what Hillary said when her Husband was issuing pardons.
There were a lot of pardons (a pardon is a stronger measure than a commutation of sentence).
The official list of pardons is on the US Dept of Justice Website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
Here is what Marc Rich was pardoned for (in 2001 just before leaving office):
Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
and here is what the Gregories (husband and wife members of the Puerto Rican Terrorist group FALN - there were others in the group) were pardoned for (march 15, 2000):
Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, etc.
Hillary did not denounce most of her husband's pardons (in fact at the time there was suspicion that these pardons were a form of vote buying since the Puerto Rican vote is substantial in NY and Hillary was running for Senate in NY at the time. She did, specifically endorse the FALN pardons, although the NYTimes (and others, including some who are criticizing the Libby commutation) defended these pardons at the time see:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DD143DF93AA3575AC0A96F958260
So let's run through the possibilities:
1 - Hillary didn't have an opinion of the Clinton Pardons, does now but isnt' saying
2 - Hillary favored the Clinton Pardons (at least the FALN ones, even if she says now she didn't and even if at the time she issued mealy mouth comments on those pardons) and still does but isn't saying
3 - Hillary was against the Clinton Pardons but didn't say so then
4 - Hillary was for the Clinton Pardons but isn't anymore
So many posibilities.
I personally think #2 is correct and if so, she is guilty of hypocrisy in that she thinks political pardons are OK but says otherwise (unless you posit that political pardons of Puerto Rican terrorists is OK but commuting the sentence of Republican perjurers isn't - an interesting argument would have to be made). One could hope some reporter will ask the appropriate hard questions but probably Hillary won't allow such questions so we will never know - alas since I personally think it is important to know whether a Presidential candidate thinks the FALN pardons are OK.
This same argument could be made in much less stark form for Sen Edwards and Sen Obama. Edwards was elected Senator from NC in 1994 so he was new to the job during the Clinton pardons. Obama was just a State Senator in 2000 and wasn't elected to the US Senate until 2004.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Barbara Walters Felt Tawdry - I wanted to vomit
Barbara Walters got a phone interview with Paris Hilton from the LA County jail. She almost landed the first post release interview with Ms Hilton (she had questions sketched out). But CNN and Larry King got the interview, somehow Barbara decided that it was Tawdry.
There is an amazing bit of self justification that Barbara goes through. She claims it wasn't Tawdry until the 'pay for interview' discussion, then it became tawdry and according to Barbara the folks at ABC didn't get outbid by CNN; no, they discovered journalism standards and furthermore it was because of Barbara.
Because I believe Ms Walters is lying, I will classify her as a hypocrite on this. She says she felt the Hilton interview was tawdry, she really is just jealous of Larry King.
FWIW, I think King is an awful interviewer; he has no willingness to construct a tough question and he has no ability to ask a follow up question; Walters may be a better interviewer; however she makes me want to vomit.
BTW, as explained by the LA TIMES, the networks do not pay directly for interviews, instead they give license fees, residuals, options on discounts at luxury hotels, etc. In that way, the networks can proudly say, "We do not pay for interviews."
This would be a case of hypocrisy also, but actually its closer to weaseling.
As posted on:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/walters_calls_idea_of_paris_interview_tawdry_61721.aspa
and
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-parismillion,0,7909619.story?coll=la-home-entertainment
Barbara Walters got a phone interview with Paris Hilton from the LA County jail. She almost landed the first post release interview with Ms Hilton (she had questions sketched out). But CNN and Larry King got the interview, somehow Barbara decided that it was Tawdry.
There is an amazing bit of self justification that Barbara goes through. She claims it wasn't Tawdry until the 'pay for interview' discussion, then it became tawdry and according to Barbara the folks at ABC didn't get outbid by CNN; no, they discovered journalism standards and furthermore it was because of Barbara.
Because I believe Ms Walters is lying, I will classify her as a hypocrite on this. She says she felt the Hilton interview was tawdry, she really is just jealous of Larry King.
FWIW, I think King is an awful interviewer; he has no willingness to construct a tough question and he has no ability to ask a follow up question; Walters may be a better interviewer; however she makes me want to vomit.
BTW, as explained by the LA TIMES, the networks do not pay directly for interviews, instead they give license fees, residuals, options on discounts at luxury hotels, etc. In that way, the networks can proudly say, "We do not pay for interviews."
This would be a case of hypocrisy also, but actually its closer to weaseling.
As posted on:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/walters_calls_idea_of_paris_interview_tawdry_61721.aspa
and
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-parismillion,0,7909619.story?coll=la-home-entertainment
Monday, May 21, 2007
DiCaprio defends
Apparently the charge of hypocrisy has registered in Hollywood. In an appearance promoting a new environmentalist documentary, Leonardo DiCaprio stated that he takes commercial flights as often as possible and implied that his fellow Hollywood environmentalist types are doing the best they can personnally to reduce their carbon footprint.
I don't have the fact available to evaluate this, e.g., information on electrical consumption at the constellation of DiCaprio properties, gasoline consumption in DiCaprio owned vehicles, number and nature of private jet flights. I suspect that DiCaprio is still producing dozens of times more carbon dioxide emissions than the US per capita average but can't prove it.
The article with the DiCaprio defense is:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070519184436.x9vgvtk2&show_article=1
Apparently the charge of hypocrisy has registered in Hollywood. In an appearance promoting a new environmentalist documentary, Leonardo DiCaprio stated that he takes commercial flights as often as possible and implied that his fellow Hollywood environmentalist types are doing the best they can personnally to reduce their carbon footprint.
I don't have the fact available to evaluate this, e.g., information on electrical consumption at the constellation of DiCaprio properties, gasoline consumption in DiCaprio owned vehicles, number and nature of private jet flights. I suspect that DiCaprio is still producing dozens of times more carbon dioxide emissions than the US per capita average but can't prove it.
The article with the DiCaprio defense is:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070519184436.x9vgvtk2&show_article=1
Monday, April 23, 2007
More Celebrity CO2 emissions
Apparently Laurie David and Sheryl Crow are on tour promoting a 'fight global warming'.
Reports from around the blogosphere are that they both have, uh... issues here.
For example, at one site,
" ... Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" and global warming activist, told Texas A&M students to change their "individual behavior" in order to consume fewer resources and to help battle global warming. As an employee of Easterwood Airport, I would like to point out that Mrs. David flew to our campus in a luxurious private jet, which could be seen from 10 miles away due to the thick plume of smog it left in its wake. I am neither denying nor confirming the epidemic of global warming, I am simply pointing out that hypocrites such as Mrs. David don't care about the environment, only their own political agendas. This is proven time and again by these celebrities' and lobbyist's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. Richard PawlikClass of 2007:
This site is:
http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2007/04/12/MailCall/Laurie.David.Is.A.Hypocrite-2837056.shtml
there is more on Ms David (she also made a 'minimize bathroom tissue' effort) at:
http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest51.html
What will be more famous however is the 'minimize bathroom tissue' writings of Sheryl Crow. Ms. Crow has called for a 1-square policy on bathroon tissue.
The Yahoo report is at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6583067.stm
Ms. Crow also seems to require 6 cars, 3 trackter trailers and 4 busses when she tours. This is based on the definitive work of "The Smoking Gun" at:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/scrow/scrow1.html
Whether this is a case of hypocrisy depends on whether you accept the greenhouse offset (I'm presuming that both Ms. David and Ms. Crow buy them).
Apparently Laurie David and Sheryl Crow are on tour promoting a 'fight global warming'.
Reports from around the blogosphere are that they both have, uh... issues here.
For example, at one site,
" ... Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" and global warming activist, told Texas A&M students to change their "individual behavior" in order to consume fewer resources and to help battle global warming. As an employee of Easterwood Airport, I would like to point out that Mrs. David flew to our campus in a luxurious private jet, which could be seen from 10 miles away due to the thick plume of smog it left in its wake. I am neither denying nor confirming the epidemic of global warming, I am simply pointing out that hypocrites such as Mrs. David don't care about the environment, only their own political agendas. This is proven time and again by these celebrities' and lobbyist's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. Richard PawlikClass of 2007:
This site is:
http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2007/04/12/MailCall/Laurie.David.Is.A.Hypocrite-2837056.shtml
there is more on Ms David (she also made a 'minimize bathroom tissue' effort) at:
http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest51.html
What will be more famous however is the 'minimize bathroom tissue' writings of Sheryl Crow. Ms. Crow has called for a 1-square policy on bathroon tissue.
The Yahoo report is at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6583067.stm
Ms. Crow also seems to require 6 cars, 3 trackter trailers and 4 busses when she tours. This is based on the definitive work of "The Smoking Gun" at:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/scrow/scrow1.html
Whether this is a case of hypocrisy depends on whether you accept the greenhouse offset (I'm presuming that both Ms. David and Ms. Crow buy them).
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Potential HIP HOP Hypocrisy
Last week, radio personality Don Imus was fired. He had referred to the women's basketball team at Rutgers as "... nappy hair hos". Numerous politicians criticized Imus, some calling for him to be fired. Two of the critics were Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both of whom are running for President.
Columnist Colbert King accuses Senator Clinton in a column called "From Clinton, Hip-Hop Hypocrisy". The link is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042001589.html
the basis of King's accusation is that Hillary received about $800k from a fundraiser hosted by (maybe partially organized by) an entertainer named Timbaland. Here are lyrics from a record called "Come and Get Me" by Timbaland:
Hooooooooo (Ho)
Youza Hoooooo (Ho)
Youza Hoooooo (Ho)
I said that youza hooooo (Ho)
Other parts of "Ho" are worse.
So the question is whether either of both Senators are guilty of Hypocrisy and if so, what level.
While I suspect both Senators are morally vain and intellectually dishonest I don't think the hypocrisy charge is completely set. Imus's position in talk radio is considerably different from the job of Ludacris or Timbaland. It may be that the nasty lyrics in hip-hop are more damaging than the comments by Imus. It would be interesting to hear the two Senators answer detailed questions about their relationship to hip-hop artists. Notwithstanding this, there are some distinctions that could be made between the Imus situation and the hip-hop supporters. Without further understanding their reasoning here, I'm unable to close the loop myself on this.
Last week, radio personality Don Imus was fired. He had referred to the women's basketball team at Rutgers as "... nappy hair hos". Numerous politicians criticized Imus, some calling for him to be fired. Two of the critics were Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both of whom are running for President.
Columnist Colbert King accuses Senator Clinton in a column called "From Clinton, Hip-Hop Hypocrisy". The link is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042001589.html
the basis of King's accusation is that Hillary received about $800k from a fundraiser hosted by (maybe partially organized by) an entertainer named Timbaland. Here are lyrics from a record called "Come and Get Me" by Timbaland:
"Nigga Your Time Is Up, I Aint Come To Kid You
I Knew You Niggas Was Dumb, But How Dumb Is You . . .
I'm A Ride Or Die Nigga, I Be Tearing [expletive] Up
We Aint Like Them Other Fools, Who Don't Compare To Us
All The Hoes Love A Nigga, They be Backing It Up
But Me I Love Money I Be Stacking It Up . . .
I'm Rich I Can Pay To Have You Six Feet Deep (Nigga)"
Similarly, Senator Obama met with entertainer Ludacris in Nov 06 to promote AIDS awareness. The Chicago Newspaper report on that is at: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8LNFUCO2&show_article=1&catnum=0
Ludacris is the performer of "Ho". A portion of the lyrics is:Hooooooooo (Ho)
Youza Hoooooo (Ho)
Youza Hoooooo (Ho)
I said that youza hooooo (Ho)
Other parts of "Ho" are worse.
So the question is whether either of both Senators are guilty of Hypocrisy and if so, what level.
While I suspect both Senators are morally vain and intellectually dishonest I don't think the hypocrisy charge is completely set. Imus's position in talk radio is considerably different from the job of Ludacris or Timbaland. It may be that the nasty lyrics in hip-hop are more damaging than the comments by Imus. It would be interesting to hear the two Senators answer detailed questions about their relationship to hip-hop artists. Notwithstanding this, there are some distinctions that could be made between the Imus situation and the hip-hop supporters. Without further understanding their reasoning here, I'm unable to close the loop myself on this.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
More on Gore (this time its a zinc mine)
The Nashville, TN newspaper has a substantive article on a zinc mine that uses mineral rights under property that has been in the Gore family for several decades. Evidently for these decades the zinc mining has enriched the Gore family and also emitted many tons of nasty stuff into the air and water.
The article is:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070318/NEWS01/70316074
I don't think former VP Gore has ever said that nobody should own zinc mines. Furthermore, it is certainly possible, that the fact that zinc exists allows steel to be made more durable (certainly more corrosion resistant) and thus is a net good for the environment. Also the article doesn't give the relative tons of emission to tons of production of various zinc mines so its essentially impossible to tell if the mine using the Gore property was a relatively 'clean' mining operation or not. Thus I'm not going to call hypocrisy on this.
Notwithstanding the non- hypocrisy call the fact that Gore has this property shows the difficulty in being a truly environmentally benign person (also the ownership of the mansion that consumes so much electricity shows this). This wouldn't be an issue except that Gore has lent his name to a quasi religious anti global warming movement and has also stated that relatively painless steps can be done to reduce the impact on the environment. While the zinc mine issue is not a case of hypocrisy by itself, the insinuation of 'easy environmentalism' certainly is. Thus, it makes me a little sick in the stomach to hear Gore again and again on this general theme.
The Nashville, TN newspaper has a substantive article on a zinc mine that uses mineral rights under property that has been in the Gore family for several decades. Evidently for these decades the zinc mining has enriched the Gore family and also emitted many tons of nasty stuff into the air and water.
The article is:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070318/NEWS01/70316074
I don't think former VP Gore has ever said that nobody should own zinc mines. Furthermore, it is certainly possible, that the fact that zinc exists allows steel to be made more durable (certainly more corrosion resistant) and thus is a net good for the environment. Also the article doesn't give the relative tons of emission to tons of production of various zinc mines so its essentially impossible to tell if the mine using the Gore property was a relatively 'clean' mining operation or not. Thus I'm not going to call hypocrisy on this.
Notwithstanding the non- hypocrisy call the fact that Gore has this property shows the difficulty in being a truly environmentally benign person (also the ownership of the mansion that consumes so much electricity shows this). This wouldn't be an issue except that Gore has lent his name to a quasi religious anti global warming movement and has also stated that relatively painless steps can be done to reduce the impact on the environment. While the zinc mine issue is not a case of hypocrisy by itself, the insinuation of 'easy environmentalism' certainly is. Thus, it makes me a little sick in the stomach to hear Gore again and again on this general theme.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Glenn Greenwald with an amusing but inconsequential hypocrisy
A blogger named Patterico makes a convincing case that a fellow blogger named Glenn Greenwald is a hypocrite. The basic charge is that Greenwald accused various bloggers (LGF and Michelle Maukin) as operating a hate site because unmoderated comments were, uh... immoderate. However Greenwald also says that conservatives shouldn't look 'deep into the comments' in, say, the Huffington Post for immoderate comments.
What makes this especially amusing is that Patterico traces the IP address to show that someone using Greenwald's computer has made immoderate comments himself using pseudonyms. This detective word is explained at:
http://patterico.com/2006/07/27/4900/annotated-wuzzadem-the-facts-
behind-the-greenwald-sock-puppetry/
and a explanation of the commenters at left vs commenters at right sites is at:
http://patterico.com/2007/02/27/5886/glenn-greenwald-thomas-ellers-
and-rick-ellensburg-the-three-most-hypocritical-men-on-the-planet/
So Greenwald pretty obviously has done what he has said should not be done without an explanation, or an admission, of why he changed his position.
However since Glenn Greewald is not a very important character this bit of hypocrisy is not very important either.
A blogger named Patterico makes a convincing case that a fellow blogger named Glenn Greenwald is a hypocrite. The basic charge is that Greenwald accused various bloggers (LGF and Michelle Maukin) as operating a hate site because unmoderated comments were, uh... immoderate. However Greenwald also says that conservatives shouldn't look 'deep into the comments' in, say, the Huffington Post for immoderate comments.
What makes this especially amusing is that Patterico traces the IP address to show that someone using Greenwald's computer has made immoderate comments himself using pseudonyms. This detective word is explained at:
http://patterico.com/2006/07/27/4900/annotated-wuzzadem-the-facts-
behind-the-greenwald-sock-puppetry/
and a explanation of the commenters at left vs commenters at right sites is at:
http://patterico.com/2007/02/27/5886/glenn-greenwald-thomas-ellers-
and-rick-ellensburg-the-three-most-hypocritical-men-on-the-planet/
So Greenwald pretty obviously has done what he has said should not be done without an explanation, or an admission, of why he changed his position.
However since Glenn Greewald is not a very important character this bit of hypocrisy is not very important either.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Gore paradigm is generalized
The LATimes has an article that, in effect, generalizes the Gore situation to many other green leaning politicos. It is at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jets28feb28,0,2448915.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The article points out the fact that such elected officials as Sen Dianne Feinstein and Gov Arnold Schwartzenegger fly on private jets ocassionally. Staff of these officials point out that sometimes a commercial carrier isn't available to get them where they have to go when they have to be there. Certainly, this is more reasonable than the Gore Mansion case where there is no business reason why Gore has to have a 10,000 ft house, no business reason why it has to have a heated pool, no business reason why he has to have 3 other residences.
I'll give the elected officials a pass. However, it behooves them to consider that the citizens they represent also have to be places and certain times (like at work) whenever they make speeches about global warming.
The LATimes has an article that, in effect, generalizes the Gore situation to many other green leaning politicos. It is at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jets28feb28,0,2448915.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The article points out the fact that such elected officials as Sen Dianne Feinstein and Gov Arnold Schwartzenegger fly on private jets ocassionally. Staff of these officials point out that sometimes a commercial carrier isn't available to get them where they have to go when they have to be there. Certainly, this is more reasonable than the Gore Mansion case where there is no business reason why Gore has to have a 10,000 ft house, no business reason why it has to have a heated pool, no business reason why he has to have 3 other residences.
I'll give the elected officials a pass. However, it behooves them to consider that the citizens they represent also have to be places and certain times (like at work) whenever they make speeches about global warming.
Even More on the Al Gore Mansion
1. it seems Al Gore has 3 other dwellings he owns and only spends about 6 months of the year in Nashville
2. the use of carbon credits is apparently mentioned in his .ppt presentations, however most of the presentations are about reducing consumption; also apparently carbon credits were part of the goodie bag handed out at the Oscars ---
Given the mention of carbon credits in the .ppt presentation, Al Gore may be more properly considered a morally vain weasel rather than a hypocrite. Would that be better?
Also, here is a post from someone who lives near Al and consumes less per sq ft. It also has an impressive chain of comments.
http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/2007/02/27/debunking-a-rather-lame-debunking/
One additional point is worth mentioning. Al Gore buys carbon credits from a company which is has the following web site:
http://www.generationim.com/
It turns out that Al Gore founded this company and is the chairman of the company. The company apparently invests in ecofriendly technology although the company's website is unspecific about what they actually do, who owns how much stock and how much capital the company manages. In effect, Al Gore may well be buying carbon credits by investing the money in his own company.
1. it seems Al Gore has 3 other dwellings he owns and only spends about 6 months of the year in Nashville
2. the use of carbon credits is apparently mentioned in his .ppt presentations, however most of the presentations are about reducing consumption; also apparently carbon credits were part of the goodie bag handed out at the Oscars ---
Given the mention of carbon credits in the .ppt presentation, Al Gore may be more properly considered a morally vain weasel rather than a hypocrite. Would that be better?
Also, here is a post from someone who lives near Al and consumes less per sq ft. It also has an impressive chain of comments.
http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/2007/02/27/debunking-a-rather-lame-debunking/
One additional point is worth mentioning. Al Gore buys carbon credits from a company which is has the following web site:
http://www.generationim.com/
It turns out that Al Gore founded this company and is the chairman of the company. The company apparently invests in ecofriendly technology although the company's website is unspecific about what they actually do, who owns how much stock and how much capital the company manages. In effect, Al Gore may well be buying carbon credits by investing the money in his own company.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Al Gore - More Information
Apparently Mr. Gore purchases carbon credits. This is according to a post at Thinkprogress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/
The site doesn't provide the cost of the carbon credits. However, carbon credits were going for about $4/ton the past few months. Assuming 1 megawatt hour per ton of carbon (which is a very high estimate and assumes essentially all the electricity is from coal), the credits would cost Mr. Gore less than about $800/year. Of the course the reason the cost is low is that almost nobody buys such credits, thus reducing the demand and the market clearing price.
The post at Thinkprogress also says that Gore's mansion uses a number of energy conservation devices but this begs the point of why the consumption is so high and why it has gone up in the past few years (the thinkprogress site states that the increased consumption is being done to reduce future consumption but the only detail provided is that solar panels are being installed and this improvement does not require much electricity to accomplish beyond the small amount needed to run the carpentry equipment).
Apparently Mr. Gore purchases carbon credits. This is according to a post at Thinkprogress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/
The site doesn't provide the cost of the carbon credits. However, carbon credits were going for about $4/ton the past few months. Assuming 1 megawatt hour per ton of carbon (which is a very high estimate and assumes essentially all the electricity is from coal), the credits would cost Mr. Gore less than about $800/year. Of the course the reason the cost is low is that almost nobody buys such credits, thus reducing the demand and the market clearing price.
The post at Thinkprogress also says that Gore's mansion uses a number of energy conservation devices but this begs the point of why the consumption is so high and why it has gone up in the past few years (the thinkprogress site states that the increased consumption is being done to reduce future consumption but the only detail provided is that solar panels are being installed and this improvement does not require much electricity to accomplish beyond the small amount needed to run the carpentry equipment).
Monday, February 26, 2007
Al Gore's Uses about 20x the average household's energy use
Is that Hypocrisy?
A public interest group in Tennessee seems to have gotten hold of the electricity and natural gas bills for the Gore mansion in Nashville, TN. As might be expected, former VP Gore's mansion uses much more than the average house. The group also says that the mansion has increased its consumption since the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" came out. The group also specifically accuses VP Gore of hypocrisy.
The article is at:
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
I do not know this for certain but I'm assuming that Mr. Gore has on numerous occasions stated that everyone should reduce their energy consumption.
This certainly looks like a case of VP Gore saying one thing and doing another. However there may be some possible outs for Mr. Gore.
1. It may be that almost all the electricity is used for security related business since after all he is a public figure who requires a certain amount of protection against possible assassins.
2. It may be that his electricity use is much less than other mansions of its size (it apparently has 20 rooms, including 8 bathrooms).
3. It may be that this mansion should be compared to research centers of similar size if a lot of research is being done there.
4. It may be that the KW hour purchased are being used to manufacture something at the mansion, in which case the residential comparison doesn't work.
If none of these or similar findings are true, the Mr. Gore will rightfully considered a hypocrite, although I don't see how it can be a very dangerous hypocrisy (tentatively call it a level 2).
Is that Hypocrisy?
A public interest group in Tennessee seems to have gotten hold of the electricity and natural gas bills for the Gore mansion in Nashville, TN. As might be expected, former VP Gore's mansion uses much more than the average house. The group also says that the mansion has increased its consumption since the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" came out. The group also specifically accuses VP Gore of hypocrisy.
The article is at:
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
I do not know this for certain but I'm assuming that Mr. Gore has on numerous occasions stated that everyone should reduce their energy consumption.
This certainly looks like a case of VP Gore saying one thing and doing another. However there may be some possible outs for Mr. Gore.
1. It may be that almost all the electricity is used for security related business since after all he is a public figure who requires a certain amount of protection against possible assassins.
2. It may be that his electricity use is much less than other mansions of its size (it apparently has 20 rooms, including 8 bathrooms).
3. It may be that this mansion should be compared to research centers of similar size if a lot of research is being done there.
4. It may be that the KW hour purchased are being used to manufacture something at the mansion, in which case the residential comparison doesn't work.
If none of these or similar findings are true, the Mr. Gore will rightfully considered a hypocrite, although I don't see how it can be a very dangerous hypocrisy (tentatively call it a level 2).
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Alan Wolfe vs Dinesh D'Souza; who are the hypocrites
Dinesh D'Souza, an author, researcher with the Hoover Institute of Stanford Univ and contributor to generally right wing magazines and websites, wrote a book recently the gist of which was that the uncouth nature of American culture contributed substantially to the 9-11 motivation and that also the political left's embrace of Hollywood contributed to the culture.
Alan Wolfe, an author, a professor at Boston College and a contributor to left wing magazines, criticised the D'Souza book and pronounced any Republican or conservative who fails to disassociate themselves from D'Souza a hypocrite (and other bad things).
Peter Berkowitz, an author, professor at George Mason University and also associated with the Hoover Institute reviewed the situation in an article at a conservative webzine:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/306biljm.asp?pg=2
In Berkowitz's review he points up the fact that Wolfe had, in 2004, written an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled "A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics." In this essay Wolfe contended that the works of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmidtt are in some way helpful in understanding conservative writers Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Berkowitz charges Wolfe with hypocrisy in that, as near as I can tell Wolfe is, in the essay, demonizing people he disagrees with while in the review of D'Souza's book, criticizing D'Souza for demonizing people he disagrees with.
Although this sounds interesting I'm going to take a pass since an analysis would require reading substantial sections of both the DSouza book (which sounds to me like a conclusion based on a very selective reading of some cherry picked facts) and Wolfe's essay which sounds to me like egregious nonsense.
Dinesh D'Souza, an author, researcher with the Hoover Institute of Stanford Univ and contributor to generally right wing magazines and websites, wrote a book recently the gist of which was that the uncouth nature of American culture contributed substantially to the 9-11 motivation and that also the political left's embrace of Hollywood contributed to the culture.
Alan Wolfe, an author, a professor at Boston College and a contributor to left wing magazines, criticised the D'Souza book and pronounced any Republican or conservative who fails to disassociate themselves from D'Souza a hypocrite (and other bad things).
Peter Berkowitz, an author, professor at George Mason University and also associated with the Hoover Institute reviewed the situation in an article at a conservative webzine:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/306biljm.asp?pg=2
In Berkowitz's review he points up the fact that Wolfe had, in 2004, written an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled "A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics." In this essay Wolfe contended that the works of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmidtt are in some way helpful in understanding conservative writers Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Berkowitz charges Wolfe with hypocrisy in that, as near as I can tell Wolfe is, in the essay, demonizing people he disagrees with while in the review of D'Souza's book, criticizing D'Souza for demonizing people he disagrees with.
Although this sounds interesting I'm going to take a pass since an analysis would require reading substantial sections of both the DSouza book (which sounds to me like a conclusion based on a very selective reading of some cherry picked facts) and Wolfe's essay which sounds to me like egregious nonsense.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Friday, February 02, 2007
John Edwards and the Hypocrisy House
I must admit my flesh crawls sometimes when hearing former Senator Edwards speak. Thus it will be a challenge to address yet another potential Edwards hypocrisy event. An artilce on townhall proclaims, "Hypocrisy, thy name is John Edwards."
The case made in the article is that former Senator Edwards, by running a campaign based on an anti-Walmart, anti-exploiter capitalist, "There are Two Americas (one rich, one exploited)" is being a hypocrite by building a mega house (some 28k sq ft on 102 acres and the highest value house in Orange County NC). This house will consume huge amounts of energy to heat and light.
Much as I might like I can't see the hypocrisy. Edwards never said, "the rich shouldn't build nice (or big) houses", never said, "the rich shouldn't show off their wealth" or anything similar.
Now, I could see calling the building of this house in bad taste or tacky or even ironic-- but hypocrisy - nope, not this time.
The article is at:
http://wherearemykeys.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=c8c685cc-55fc-4ef5-a8d4-292a95907a89
A picture of the house and more architectural details at:
http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848
I must admit my flesh crawls sometimes when hearing former Senator Edwards speak. Thus it will be a challenge to address yet another potential Edwards hypocrisy event. An artilce on townhall proclaims, "Hypocrisy, thy name is John Edwards."
The case made in the article is that former Senator Edwards, by running a campaign based on an anti-Walmart, anti-exploiter capitalist, "There are Two Americas (one rich, one exploited)" is being a hypocrite by building a mega house (some 28k sq ft on 102 acres and the highest value house in Orange County NC). This house will consume huge amounts of energy to heat and light.
Much as I might like I can't see the hypocrisy. Edwards never said, "the rich shouldn't build nice (or big) houses", never said, "the rich shouldn't show off their wealth" or anything similar.
Now, I could see calling the building of this house in bad taste or tacky or even ironic-- but hypocrisy - nope, not this time.
The article is at:
http://wherearemykeys.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=c8c685cc-55fc-4ef5-a8d4-292a95907a89
A picture of the house and more architectural details at:
http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848
Friday, January 26, 2007
Tom Tancredo (R-CO): Race based Congressional Caucus is hypocrisy
article from a Jan 25 post from the AP:
White House hopeful Tom Tancredo said Thursday the existence of the Congressional Black Caucus and other race-based groups of lawmakers amount to segregation and should be abolished.
and here is the quote:
"It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a colorblind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race," said the Colorado Republican,
Well the problem here is that Representative Tancredo gives no examples of Congress extolling the virtues of a colorblind society (and frankly I doubt there are very many examples). In addition I'm not sure there is a difference between regular hypocrisy and utter hypocrisy. I presume this is just a rhetorical device. Finally, I am pretty sure the race based caucuses do essentially nothing at all.
Case dismissed.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/25/D8MSH6A00.html
article from a Jan 25 post from the AP:
White House hopeful Tom Tancredo said Thursday the existence of the Congressional Black Caucus and other race-based groups of lawmakers amount to segregation and should be abolished.
and here is the quote:
"It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a colorblind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race," said the Colorado Republican,
Well the problem here is that Representative Tancredo gives no examples of Congress extolling the virtues of a colorblind society (and frankly I doubt there are very many examples). In addition I'm not sure there is a difference between regular hypocrisy and utter hypocrisy. I presume this is just a rhetorical device. Finally, I am pretty sure the race based caucuses do essentially nothing at all.
Case dismissed.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/25/D8MSH6A00.html
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
The Pelosi-Samoa story evolves
Subsequent to the passage of the house minimum wage bill, Speaker Pelosi has, as I understand it, placed a note in the House records advising any conferees appointed to a Senate-House conference to agree to give up the Samoan exception to the minimum wage bill. However, it is unclear what this actually means because subsequent to the 'note in the House records' event, Pelosi and Representative Miller (of CA) announced that, in deference to the Representative from American Samoa they would jointly oppose requiring American Samoa to be covered since 'it would be devestating to the Samoan economy'. Of course, the Senate hasn't taken up the bill yet so this is a long way from over. And here is the statement of the Representative of American Samoa (non voting, Dem) on the issue:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/as00_faleomavaega/minimumwage2007.html
Subsequent to the passage of the house minimum wage bill, Speaker Pelosi has, as I understand it, placed a note in the House records advising any conferees appointed to a Senate-House conference to agree to give up the Samoan exception to the minimum wage bill. However, it is unclear what this actually means because subsequent to the 'note in the House records' event, Pelosi and Representative Miller (of CA) announced that, in deference to the Representative from American Samoa they would jointly oppose requiring American Samoa to be covered since 'it would be devestating to the Samoan economy'. Of course, the Senate hasn't taken up the bill yet so this is a long way from over. And here is the statement of the Representative of American Samoa (non voting, Dem) on the issue:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/as00_faleomavaega/minimumwage2007.html
Friday, January 12, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)