The Imus Apology; The Obama Apology

Then Senator Obama wanted Don Imus (radio and TV commentator) fired for a comment that members of a women's basket team were "nappy headed hos". This was several days after Imus had apologized. Imus was eventually fired and after about a year he was rehired (Imus and Obama on the left).

A few days ago on the Jay Leno show, President Obama compared his own bowling ability to a "special olympics" level. Obama apologized. Nobody that I can find is calling for Obama's resignation or any punishment at all. The special olympics committee seems to have accepted Obama's apology.

Is Obama a hypocrite for not resigning when he called for Imus's firing over a similar insulting comment.

Well, one defense that Obama could make was that in his comment, Obma was making fun of Obama. Imus was making fun of other people. Its not a strong defense but probably is enough to avoid the hypocrite label.

Still there is a double standard here and what's more interesting is that none of the big media people pointed out Obama call for firing Imus during the 'special olympics' apology. In addition, given the way Obama is briefed and the way he prepares for interviews, there is a strong chance the 'special olympics' comment was pre-scripted.


A Politico report on Obama's special olympic comment is here.

An ABC report (from 2007) on the Obama call for firing Imus is here.

Below is the timeline for the 2007 events courtesy of blackjusticeblog:

4/4/07 Imus says "nappy headed hos."
4/6/07 Imus apologizes.
4/7/07 Sharpton calls for Imus to be fired.
4/11/07 The Boston Globe writes a piece about Obama's silence on the issue thus far. Sharpton, who has not endorsed any Presidential candidate, is interviewed.
4/11/07 Obama is interviewed by ABC and is the first presidential candidate to demand Imus' firing.
4/11/07 Obama appears on Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room. He condemns Imus without mentioning rap (subsequently he condemned both Imus and rap music).
4/11/07 Imus is fired from MSNBC.
4/12/07 Imus is fired from CBS.

Service Employees International Union is anti Union

As reported in an article in today's Washington Post, the SEIU (their logo is in the image) is engaged in a labor dispute with the Union representing its own workers. This Union hasfiled charges with the National Labor Relations Board.

As explained in the article,

"...The Service Employees International Union... has notified the union that represents about 220 of its national field staff and organizers that 75 of them are being laid off. In return, the workers' union, which goes by the somewhat postmodern name of the Union of Union Representatives, has filed unfair labor practices charges against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board. The staff union's leaders say that SEIU is engaging in the same kind of practices that some businesses use -- laying off workers without proper notice, contracting out work to temp firms, banning union activities and reclassifying workers to reduce union numbers.

"It's completely hypocritical," said staff union President Malcolm Harris...

SEIU officials say the layoffs are part of a long-running plan to reallocate resources...."

I'm not familiar enough with the actual policy of the SEIU and the actual facts of the layoffs, contracting out, etc. to say whether this is a case of hypocrisy. But it is amusing.

Hypocrisy Contest

Over at Deceiver Madness they have a tournament, modeled on the NCAA Division I Basketball tournament.

People can go to the site and vote for winners of Hypocrisy runoffs.

The image to the left was done after the first round of winners.

I'm not going to comment on their definition of hypocrisy because they don't define it. They simply state that there is hypocrisy. Personally, I don't think the fact bear them out.

However, I like the idea of a contest done in this playoff format.

Big Nate:
Cartoon Hypocrite

The artist didn't use the word "hypocrite" here but its clear that he is making fun of Nate (dark spike hair guy) for criticizing people for doing what he himself is doing. This theme has been running for a couple of days now.

Dilbert on Hypocrisy

This is the first time I can remember that hypocrisy was mentioned in one of the comic strips I follow regularly. Below is the Dilbert published in the newspaper and on, Feb 25, 2009 on the Dilbert website.

The claim that corporate and Congressional executives flew together to a Congressional hearing isn't credible nor do I know of any case where the same plane was used for Congressional travel (Congressional delegations usually use either 1st class commercial or military aircraft) and Corporate travel (G pointed out that the expression 'same jet' is ambiguous). So, the 'same jet' may simply mean "a Gulfstream 3" or even "a Gulfstream".

The general claim that Congressional people are pompous is credible. Also if the general charge were that Congressional people says "don't use expensive perks" that would be hypocrisy because Congressional people do use expensive perks.

Let's Look at Some Ethics Promises of Obama/Biden

There was, as of today, a website used by the Obama/Biden campaign which made a number of commitments on ethics.

Here were some of the commitments (from at website):

• Close the revolving door on former and future employers:

  No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.

• Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
• Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Regarding the first bullet, there are, as of today, about two dozen known former lobbyists (depending on the definition) who have been appointed. The Obama/Biden Administration has said that these are exceptions. There are also an unknown number (at least a dozen have been specifically announced) of people who went from the Obama/Biden campaign directly to lobbying companies. This, of course, is not covered by the ethics promise.

Regarding the second bullet, President Obama signed two bills, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the State Children Health Insurance Program within two days (the second within hours) after it passed Congress. The Obama/Biden Administration has not said whether these were exceptions (hard to believe they could be called 'emergencies').

Regarding the third bullet, there were many egregious clauses in the Simulus Bill (one for an $8 billion maglev program, another $30M for habitat protection for a mouse that lives in the SF Bay area). Obama signed it 4 days after the Congress passed it (The President did say was an emergency - unlike the Ledbetter or S-Chips legislation which took less time to sign).

Here is a problem. I faced it when I was in government. The problem is "what is an earmark?". It may be that the common sense definition of 'earmark' is not used by President Obama. Here is one definition by the OMB (which is part of the executive branch),

"... funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process."

Here is the Congressional Research Service definition,

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)"

We don't know what Obama's definition is.

In this case, it seems to me that the Obama campaign promise itself was clearly an example of an overpromise because bringing the sunlight to earmarks is a congressional responsibility which is difficult for the executive to fill unless they have spies among the staffers in the drafting and conference committees.

Let's see if the President has anything to say about any of these issues in the coming weeks before completing the analysis.

Postscript: It is now (Writing on March 15) several weeks later. Obama seems to have the position, "well I said I would curtail earmarks, I didn't say when". Yuck.

Also, here is an interesting except from Obama's second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope"

"..."Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith....

If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'...

"For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'

More Hypocrisy From Celebrity Greens

- or is it

The London (England) Times has obtained (it didn't say how) an infrared image of several neighborhoods in London with homes owned by celebrity 'anti-Global Warming' advocates (the image is from the article and the bright red - very 'leaky' home is owned by singer Chris Martin and actress Gwyneth Paltrow- both anti GW advocates). The Times says it provided the images to a company that analyzes the images for wasted heat. It found that a number of celebrities have homes that are leaking heat, presumably because of poor insulation, over design with windows, etc. It also had estimates for lost energy for other homes:

Lost energy

Sir David Attenborough, broadcaster: 288kg

Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the Environment Agency: 186kg

John Sauven, director of Greenpeace: 158kg

Richard Chartres, Bishop of London: 135kg

Hilary Benn, environment secretary: 126kg

Ed Miliband, energy and climate change secretary: 121kg

David Cameron, Tory leader: 21kg

There are several issues here. First, is the data accurate? Second, is the data analysis accurate? Third is the interpretation of the analysis appropriate (for example, if some of these homes are used for multiperson offices, the 'excess heat/person' may be much less).

Above all is the issue of knowledge. Does, for example, Lord Smith realize his home is poorly insulated and has leaky windows? If he does know and does nothing about it and advocates other people should insulate and fix leaky windows, that does make him a hypocrite. But really, what if he doesn't realize his house is an energy waster? That would just make him a fool (or an ignoramus or even a pompous ignoramus) which seems actually worse that being a hypocrite.

Did Obama Break A Campaign Promise and then "Disappear" the Promise

The fellow in the image is Lloyd Chapman. He blogs for the American Small Business League. He maintains that Senator Obama promised during his campaign,

"....Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy and we must protect this great resource. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants."

He then states that President Obama has not done anything yet to implement this and has, in fact, made the situation worse. He also notes that some websites which featured Senator Obama's promise to small business have disappeared (but he had screen saves of them I gather).

As to hypocrisy, it is far too early to tell. Three weeks into an administration isn't time to implement pro small business practices (full disclosure: I think, based on my experience as a federal govt employee, a lot of the federal govt.'s small business practices are wasteful; I think it is almost indisputable that the regulation in this area drives up the cost of certain highway items, e.g., guardrail, line painting, etc.). Let's see what this fellow says this time next year.


The Wikipedia site on Mr. Chapman is here. He apparently sued the Bush administration a number of times so it doesn't seem he is a partisan Republican.

Mr. Chapman's blog was put out as a PR piece by the American Small Business League.

The Obama campaign website had a promise on the small business issue.

Prince Charles on an Ecotour

Prince Charles, his wife and 16 friends will be going on a 10 day ecotour to promote awareness of global warming.

They will use the A-319 jet pictured on the left (which could transport about 130 people if used commercially). Per various calculations, the carbon footprint will exceed 200 tons. Charles says this will be offset with carbon credits.

Once again, this is a test of belief. If Charles really, truly beliefs in carbon credits, then no hypocrisy.

The info for the article comes from a British newspaper.

I don't know how much per ton Charles paid. From this wikipedia article it seems it would be on the order of $20 to $50 per ton.

State University of Illinois and Their Plagiarism Policy

My brother Irwin alerted me to this interesting tidbit.

An State Illinois University (SIU) committee had recently completed an 18 months long inquiry into plagiarism at the SIU. A 17 page report was published (about 1 page for every month the committee deliberated). The report contained a definition of plagiarism that seems to have been copied, almost word for word from a definition published by Indiana University in 2005. This is per a report by a blogger who is taking an account from another source (with proper attribution).

On a fun note, various people on the SIU team that developed the policy were interviewed and no one was willing and able to say who did the plagiarism definition. One person on the team said it must just be coincidence but as the two definitions were read to her indicated that maybe it wasn't coincidence.

Assuming the body of the report says that plagiarizing is bad and not to be tolerated, this example of plagiarizing by the SIU committee (or the principle author of the study or the very shy author of the definition of plagiarizing), is a fairly obvious case of hypocrisy.

Is it serious?

I don't think so. First of all, very few people really care whether an SIU committee is committing hypocrisy (personally I presume people assume there is a certain amount of sleasiness in SIU). Second, whether SIU investigates and prevents further plagiarism is pretty much dependent on enforcement, not policy since everyone acknowledges that Universities shouldn't engage in plagiarism nor allow professors or students to do so.

However, the article is very good for chuckles. The image is a structure on the Carbondale, IL. campus called the "Paul and Virginia Fountain". Apparently the sculptor of this is unknown (like the author of the plagiarized definition).

UPDATE: At this same university, the Director of Career Services retired recently when it was revealed that his actual military service records did not match the awards and medals he had claimed the past 20 years.

Did Hypocrisy Sink the Nomination of Tom Daschle

There is a long post on Townhall by the son of Linda Chavez. Ms. Chavez was nominated by George W. Bush to be Labor Secretary in 2001. She had to withdraw her nomination because of criticism based on a tax issue.

The writer says that Daschle's vigorous opposition. Here is the writer's version:

"...Shortly after my mother Linda Chavez was nominated by President Bush to be Secretary of Labor in January of 2001, ABC News reported that she had given room and board to an undocumented woman from Guatemala. As Chavez stated at the time, she had provided the battered woman with emergency assistance due to the domestic abuse she was facing at the time, got her enrolled in English classes, and helped her find work with a neighbor. In her own defense, Chavez pointed to her long history of taking in those in need, and a long history of paying taxes on household help from legal citizens, as tax records confirmed.

But Chavez’s honest explanation was completely disregarded by Daschle. Less than a week after Bush announced the nomination, the then-Minority Leader declared he had “serious problems” with the illegal alien revelations and threatened to filibuster her nomination, a move that would have been the first in our nation’s history against a cabinet nominee...."

There are some problems that the writer glosses over. The undocumented woman did a lot of chores for the Chavez household while living there. These chores went beyond those of a 'guest'. So, there was some legitimate question of whether the woman was an 'employee'. Not withstanding the fact that the woman, herself, said that she did these chores by her own initiative and is a friend of the Chavez household.

Anyway, let's assume this is hypocrisy. The fact is that I don't think the 'hypocrisy' issue affected the Daschle nomination or the fact that he withdrew his nomination today. The issue was, I think, 1. 'you are supposed to pay taxes and the bigger a celebrity you are, the cleaner you should be'; and 2. Obama promised that he would bring people in who were not part of the system of lobbyists (Daschle was a consultant to lobbyists, not technically a lobbyist but it is a technical difference that doesn't ring very cleanly). In a sense, then, it was Obama's promises on ethics (a possible hypocrisy that I might get to analyze at some point) that sunk Daschle and not Daschle's hypocrisy (they are both in the image on the top).

Thermostat Hypocrisy
h/t Instapundit (who used this phrase in a post)

To the left is an image of a White House meeting that took place Jan 27 or 28. The President and two others have removed their suit jacket.

As reported by the NY Times (who is also responsible for the image),
"... President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat."

An Obama advisor said, " “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

Let's ignore the fact that Obama hasn't lived in Hawaii for many years (although he has vacationed there).

Here is an Obama statement from the campaign,

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

Here is an Obama statement about the weather and D.C. area school closings (Jan 28 2009),

""My children's school was canceled today," Obama said, speaking to reporters before a meeting with business leaders. "Because of what? Some ice? . . . We're going to have to apply some flinty Chicago toughness (this contradicts the "Hawaii" defense by the way) to this town."

He clearly is doing that (raising the thermostat to 'orchid temperature' in the winter) which he says we "can't" (actually he should have said, "shouldn't" in that quote).

Hypocrisy but not very serious.

Boston Herald Says Barney Frank is a Hypocrite

Well the opinion piece by staff of the Boston Herald is short enough to quote in its entirety,

"Barney Frank’s hypocrisy

By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Saturday, January 24, 2009 -

Ah, the dirty little secret is out. That $700 billion TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bill was in part simply a variation on congressional pork - except this time the recipients were banks with friends in high places.

One of those powerful friends was Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. And one of the recipients of a $12 million infusion of federal cash was the troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston - a bank that had already been accused of “unsafe and unsound banking practices.” Its CEO, Kevin Cohee had also been criticized by regulators for “excessive” pay that included a Porsche.

Frank admits he included language in the TARP legislation specifically designed to bail out OneUnited. He also acknowledges contacting officials at the Treasury Department about the bank’s bailout application.

“I believe it would have been a very big mistake to put the only black bank (in Massachusetts) out of business,” Frank said. Besides, he insists, “It was a case of the federal government causing the problem.”

Causing the bad loans OneUnited made? Or would that go back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Frank so staunchly defended earlier on?

Frank has never failed to amaze us with his ability to defend the indefensible and to staunchly uphold the double standard. It’s his special talent."

---------------

It may be that the staff of the Boston Herald knows a lot of what Barney Frank (that's him in the image) has said in the past but I certainly don't. I don't think most of the readers of the paper do either. In any case I haven't a clue as to what Barney Frank said that makes his actions in greasing the skids to get a home town bank bailed out classified as hypocrisy. Personally, I think the staff should have entitled their piece, "Barney Frank's Buddies Get $". If those buddies were big time contributors to the Barney Frank campaign fund also, that would be interesting from a legal standpoint. However, as to hypocrisy--- I can't see it.

Comment: Is CIA Director Nominee a Hypocrite?

Thus reads the title of a posting at a site called "Intelligence News."

This has to do with the practice of rendition, in which the US essentially kidnaps someone and delivers him to some other country for interrogation.

There is no doubt that this practice existed during the Clinton Administration and that Leon Panetta (image on the left, the nominee for CIA Director) knew about it. There is also no doubt that, in the months following the 9-11 atrocity, the US did more of it than it had under the Clinton Administration.

The posting actually acknowledges the fact that Panetta might have changed his mind about the legality or morality of the practice or might have an idea that under some sets of circumstances, the practice of rendition is OK and under other circumstances it is not OK. In the middle of this analysis the post says the following,

"...Leo Panetta’s purported role in the practice of extraordinary rendition during Bill Clinton’s Presidency does not automatically render hypocritical his stated condemnation of torture."

I certainly agree with this. Its far too complicated to make a definitive statement about hypocrisy.

Accusing Itself of Hypothetical Hypocrisy

Reporting on a tax problem of the nominee for US Secretary of the Treasury, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said,


"... Obama's staff told senators about the tax problems [failure to pay taxes on a reimbursement for taxes that he hadn't paid] on Dec. 5. We should have been clued in, say, Dec. 6. It should not come up hours before a Senate confirmation hearing -- not when it's clear that transparency is supposed to be the standard for this new administration. We can only imagine what we would have said had Geithner been a Bush appointee..."

This says to me that the newspaper admits (or possibly brags) that it would criticize a Republican (or Bush Administration) action far more harshly than it would the same action by a Democrat (or future Obama Administration).

Of course, this is a hypothetical case since no one nominated by Bush committed a tax violation similar to the one committed.

"You Know" vs. "Uh"

Caroline Kennedy is seeking to be appointed to the Senate in NY (to replace Sen. Clinton when Clinton takes office as Sec of State). Caroline apparently says, "you know" a lot.

According to the Telegraph,

"Caroline Kennedy's campaign to claim Hillary Clinton's Senate seat has taken another downturn after an interview in which she said "you know" 142 times..."

The interesting thing here is that President elect Obama uses the expression 'uh' a lot. The Telegraph has never made fun of him for this.

I'm not sure what is going on here. Maybe to the British mind (or ear), "You know" sounds worse that "Uh". If so, its not hypocrisy; otherwise, it sure seems to be.

On the Letterman program in March 2008, they made fun of the Obama "Uh"s. However, no one ever said it was disqualifying.

Is This Art Hypocrisy?

There is an art display at the Harrow Arts Centre (Harrow is a borough of London). The Centre removed images of nudes in Oct 2008. The image on the left was mounted in November and a complaint was made in late December. As noted in the Harrow news,


"...Ms Davey accused the council of hypocrisy for allowing the painting of the Muslim woman but censoring the nudes. "

I can't tell from the article whether the artist meant for the woman to be a terrorist or a hero.

Notwithstanding that, nudity and violence are clearly separate subjects. However, if the standard for art at the Harrow Centre is "don't show anything that offends anyone" (I'm not sure that is the standard), and the image on the left offends someone, then you are guilty of hypocrisy if you don't take it down.

Emily Says that Dahlia Says... Hypocrisy

The webzine Slate has a feature called the xx Factor. It deals with women's issues.

Recently one of the writers, Emily Bazelon wrote to say,

" Dahlia has pointed out the contradictions and hypocrisies here: The Bush administration is evincing much concern for the morals of pro-life health care workers even as it dictates a script of contested and medically inaccurate information for abortion providers. Obama will surely revoke this rule, but he can't do it with a quick stroke of the pen. In the meantime, let's at least refrain from calling this "the conscience rule," as the administration urges..."

The Dahlia in the quote is another Slate writer, Dahlia Lithwick. Dahlia compares the regulation issued under the Bush administration by the HHS (which would have to be revoked by another regulation but, notwithstanding what Emily said, the regulation's enforcement could be ended with a stroke of Obama's pen on Jan 21, 2009) which protects hospital workers from being required to perform abortions with a South Dakota law which requires providers of abortion to read a script to potential customers. That is, the comparison isn't between the Bush Administration and the Bush Administration but between the Bush Administration and a State.

I don't think this is hypocrisy on Emily's part. Just very sloppy research, a desire to use the word hypocrisy and possibly a case of BDS.

The Employees Free Choice Act

The fellow whose image is on the left, introduced legislation in 2007 that would require the National Labor Relation Board to compel companies to recognize a union if more than 50% of that companies employees signed a union card within a certain time period (although there are numerous other provisions including a provision for secret ballot elections if more than 30% sign a union card so requesting it).

Back in 2001, on the stationery of George Miller, sixteen US representatives signed a letter to Mexico containing this sentence,

".. [W]e feel that the secret ballot election is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose...."

Hypocrisy?

Probably but not necessarily. It could be that US Representative Miller believes that the situation in the US in 2007-2008 (he will reintroduce this in 2008 he says) is qualitatively different than in Mexico in 2001. Or he might have changed his mind.

It is almost certainly not the latter. On one of his websites, US Representative Miller says that the 30% provision saves the secret ballot. This is disingenuous at best because the same Union goons who could require a worker to sign the union card could simultaneously dissuade the worker from signing the secret ballot card.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Hypocrite or artful linguist

The King of Saudi Arabia (on the right in the image; President Karzai of Afghanistan is on the left) addressed a UN Interfaith conference and spoke out, ostensibly, in favor of tolerance,

Here is what he said according to an english language Turkish website,

“We state with a unified voice that religions through which Almighty God sought to bring happiness to mankind should not be turned into instruments to cause misery,” the king said, opening a UN General Assembly meeting initiated by Riyadh. “Terrorism and criminality are the enemies of every religion and every civilization. They would not have emerged except for the absence of the principle of tolerance.”

As the end of this article implies (although only far too gently IMO), Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a model when it comes to tolerance. As a matter of public record:

no religion except Islam may have a house of worship in the country;
women may not drive;
if a woman is raped she is subject to being prosecuted for adultery;
Shiite muslim are persecuted;
Sunnis who don't hold with the Salafist persuasion (e.g., the Sufi) are persecuted;
idiosyncratic groups of muslims like the Averi, Adumahddi, Ismaili) are subject to death if caught in public stating their beliefs;
public criticism of the King is a criminal offense.

there is lots more along those lines

This would be an open and shut case of hypocrisy except that we don't know what the King means.

The first sentence, "We state...misery", may simply means that he regrets that some Muslims are against him (the phrase "religions through which...happiness" may refer only to the various types of Salafism).

Furthermore, he may mean the phrase "terrorism and criminality" to only refer to killings and violence against Salafists and the phrase "principle of tolerance" to refer to his desire of all Salafists to recognize him (the King of SArabia) and the arbiter of what is right and wrong.