Columnist Leonard Pitts Carves Out a Loophole

The fellow on the left is Leonard Pitts Jr. He is a columnist for the Miami Herald and has won a Pulitzer for commentary. The image is from his own website.

A major problem for commentators who have made pro civility statements is that some of the things they like are uncivil.

Mr. Pitts is such a person. He is pro civility. However, he likes what Representative Maxim Waters said recently about the Tea Party, i.e., “. . . And as far as I’m concerned, the ‘tea party’ can go straight to Hell.”

Pitts admits this is uncivil but he carves out a loophole. His words are,

"... it is also correct: telling people to go to hell is about as uncivil as it gets. I could never, in ordinary times, applaud such conduct. But no one will ever mistake these for ordinary times."

I think he also believes that it is OK for some people to be uncivil but not others and that vigorously defending your beliefs is uncivil if he disagrees with those beliefs but I'm unsure of his reasoning or how far he takes this.

In any event, this is a clever polemic device. Whenever you want to be uncivil, simply define the times are requiring it.



Website of Mr. Pitts is here.

The column with Mr. Pitts thoughts on civility is here.

Is Warren Buffett a Hypocrite?

A NY Post opinion piece essentially makes this accusation.

Here are the facts behind the accusation.

1. Mr. Buffett had an opinion piece in the NY Times advocating greater taxation rates on the income of rich.

2. Mr. Buffett had some sloppy language in the article, for example, failing to make a distinction between 'income' and 'income from wages' and failing to precisely and and consistently use the term rich.

3. The company that Mr Buffett heads, Berkshire Hathaway, is in a tax dispute with the IRS with the company (not a surprise) claiming a lower tax liability and the IRS claiming a higher one.

I don't see the hypocrisy. The sloppiness in the opinion piece is just sloppiness and a lot of opinion pieces have about the same level of imprecision, etc. The fact is that Buffett pays the taxes for which he is personally liable and Berkshire Hathaway will pay any taxes for which a court finds them liable (and there are legitimate reasons why a company and the IRS may interpret statutory language differently). Advocating higher marginal rates (or lower rates for that matter) is just advocacy, plain and simple.

NY Post opinion piece here.
Buffett's opinion piece in the NY Times here.

NYTimes Columnist Apologizes and Admits Hypocrisy

A number of columnists or elected officials have called the Tea Party 'terrorists' or similar names. One of them was Joe Nocera.

He was accused of being a hypocrite for previously calling for civility. He apparently thought about it and decided the criticism of him was correct and he apologized for it.

Interestingly, Froma Harrop says that she is not a hypocrite because she defines 'civility' as simply letting people have their say when they are speaking (so apparently she could call people names subsequently to their speaking and not be incivil)

Column where Mr Nocera apologizes for hypocrisy is here.

Ms Harrop's post where she defines civility in a post called "am I uncivil" is here.
Blogger Ed Morrisey points out that Ms. Harrop who defines civility as 'letting people have their say', ended up deleting all the comments to her blog that complain about this definition, which would make her a 'comment deletion hypocrite'.

Is Froma Harrop a Civility Hypocrite?

This is a case similar to one involving a former US representative. It is different in that case, the 'uncivil speech' preceded the criticism of 'uncivil speech'. In this case, the criticism of 'uncivil speech' was followed by 'uncivil speech'.

But first, something about Froma Harrop. She is a journalist who did reportage journalism for some years but has since become an opinion journalist and editorial writer. As a vigorous proponent of single provider health care and of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, she is considered a left leaner or solid left opinion journalist.

In April 2011, Ms Harrop was named president of the National Conference of Editorial Writers. The new mission of that organization was the Civility Project (NCEW) which is to improve the quality of political discourse (implicitly to make discourse more civil).

Here is part of what Ms Harrop said in a recent opinion piece,

"... The tea party Republicans have engaged in economic terrorism against the United States -- threatening to blow up the economy if they don't get what they want. And like the al-Qaida bombers, what they want is delusional: the dream of restoring some fantasy caliphate in which no one pays taxes, while the country is magically protected from foreign attack and the elderly get government-paid hip replacements..."

whether Ms Harrop is a hypocrite depends on whether she believes the Republican position (that federal spending should be reduced) is within what have been called the Overton window which is the range of legitimate opinion on a particular issue. It seems to me that Ms Harrop may believe that no rational person could believe that federal spending should be curtailed during a weak recovery (notwithstanding that a large number of Americans feel this way and notwithstanding the fact that Ms Harrop seems to feel that tax increases during a weak recovery are rational and reasonable). If she does feel this way, she may feel that 'civility' is only due rational people. Of course, if she feels this way, it would be nice to have that statement on the NCEW website (it isn't, nor is any statement of what 'civility' is).

Bottom line. She may or may not be a hypocrite depending on some definitions and what is going on in her head.


April 2011 article in Rhode Island newspaper discussing Harrop's appointment is here.

Aug 2 2011 opinion piece by Harrop is here.

The Civility Project page of the NCEW is here.

A Civility Project page with the beginning of a definition of civility is here.

The Wikipedia article on the Overton Window is here.

Does GE Bring Hypocrisy to You?

Back in January 2011, President Obama established a Presidential Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The President appointed the CEO of General Electric, Jeff Immelt to chair the council.

Within a few days there were complaints about whether GE is even a 'good citizen' and pays a fair amount of taxes. Also, there was concern as to whether Mr. Immelt has a conflict of interest in serving on this council.

However, for the sake of an evaluation of hypocrisy, I'm going to focus on the issue of jobs.

On July 11, 2011 at a 'jobs summit' conference, one of the speakers (a headline speaker) was Mr. Immelt. The CNN report of this is entitled,

"Immelt: Businesses must do more on jobs."

A few days later, GE announced it was moving its X-ray business to China.

Is this a case of hypocrisy.

I think not. At least not on the basis of this one story.

GE is an enormous company with dozens (or maybe hundreds) of subsidiary operations. It might be hiring in some parts of the company while cutting jobs in other operations (GE actually stated that moving the X-ray biz to China would not result in job cutbacks). Furthermore, GE might be increasing employment in some months (or years) and decreasing them in others. In addition, it is hard to 'count' jobs by a single employer. For example, what if GE cut 50 jobs and then hired on a contractor who in turn hired those same 50 people to do their old job. That would result in a decrease in GE jobs but not in all jobs.


The Whitehouse.gov announcement of the appointment of Immelt is here.

With respect to the conflict of interest issue, see here.

With respect to the taxation issue see here and here and here.

July 11 CNN report is here.

July 26 report of GE moving X-ray business to China is here.

Obama and Corporate Jets

In a June 30, 2011 press conference (actually much of the conference is the President's opening remarks but that is typical for press conferences for all Presidents), President Obama mentioned the tax break for corporate jets a half dozen times. He noted that it is a tax expenditure and challenged the Republicans to repeal it.

The tax expenditure (which allows depreciation in 5 years instead of 7 years) was in the stimulus bill the President signed.

In addition, the day before this press conference, Obama visited an Alcoa Plant in Iowa where aircraft components are made. Most of the work there is done for large jets but some is also done for small jets (e.g., Gulfstream).

Does this make Obama a hypocrite?

Probably not in my opinion.

The stimulus bill was passed with very little apparent Administration input (no administration bill was ever developed). It is even possible that the President was never briefed on the corporate jet aspect of the bill or that such a briefing was very short. As a side note, almost every important bill in the 111th Congress (e.g., the stimulus, the health care act, the financial reform act) happened without much apparent Administration input.


Transcript of the June 30 press conference is here.
Article from 2009 spotting the corporate tax break in the stimulus bill is here.
Alcoa's PR on the Obama visit is here.
A post from Powerline calling Obama a hypocrite on this is here.

Was Korah a Hypocrite?

In chapters 16-17 of Numbers, there are a series of confrontations between Moses and several factions of the Israelites.

In one of these, Moses is speaking to Korah who is the leader of one faction (or maybe the leader of two or even three factions depending on your interpretation). Here is what Moses says (I've used Young's literal translation which emphasizes the plural vs singular and past vs present distinction),

¹And Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, taketh both Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth, sons of Reuben,

²and they rise up before Moses, with men of the sons of Israel, two hundred and fifty, princes of the company, called of the convention, men of name,

³and they are assembled against Moses and against Aaron, and say unto them, `Enough of you! for all the company -- all of them [are] holy, and in their midst [is] J... ; and wherefore do ye lift yourselves up above the assembly of J...?'

⁴And Moses heareth, and falleth on his face,

⁵and he speaketh unto Korah, and unto all his company, saying, `Morning! -- and J... is knowing those who are his, and him who is holy, and hath brought near unto Him; even him whom He doth fix on He bringeth near unto Him.

⁶This do: take to yourselves censers, Korah, and all his company,

⁷and put in them fire, and put on them perfume, before J... to-morrow, and it hath been, the man whom J... chooseth, he [is] the holy one; -- enough of you, sons of Levi.'

⁸And Moses saith unto Korah, `Hear ye, I pray you, sons of Levi;

⁹is it little to you that the God of Israel hath separated you from the company of Israel to bring you near unto Himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of J..., and to stand before the company to serve them? --

¹⁰yea, He doth bring thee near, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee -- and ye have sought also the priesthood!

One way of thinking about this is that in verse 9, Moses is referring to the fact that the Levites had been given the honor of carrying the disassembled tabernacles when the Israelites would journey (and Korah's clan was assigned to carry the holiest of the items, e.g., the ark). If Korah was interested in 'spiritual equality' (as one might think from verse 3), shouldn't he have said then (when the Levites were appointed for the task), that the other tribes should get their chance at this. Or, at the time when the Levites were given the honor of attending to the details of the offerings, shouldn't Korah have spoken up at that time. In verse 10, Moses is saying that therefore, Korah's pretense of seeking spiritual equality is simply a gambit to get the priesthood for himself.

Of course there are many other ways to look at this. Given this, I won't do an analysis.

the image is from a blog (the blogger is a 59 year old nurse;she posts a lot of Christian content and the post that used this image was about her feeling 'stiff necked' that morning)

The portion of Bamidbar (a.k.a., Numbers), in Hebrew and the JPS translation (different from the one above) is here.

I altered Young's translation slightly to use the phrase, "J..." when Young uses a pronunciation.

Hypocrisy and Culpability

Well anyway, that's the title of an opinion piece in The New Republic (a.k.a., TNR, a magazine that is leftist on economic matters and internationalist on foreign matters).

As is usual the opinion piece doesn't specify the hypocrisy (or the culpability), but the gist is that since President Obama aided the rebels in Libya who were in danger of massacre, Obama should do the same for the people of the Nuba mountains who are in more danger. TNR is on strong factual grounds with respect to the relative genocidal nature of Libya's Qaddafi vs Sudan's Omar Al Bashir. The latter has already been involved in genocide in Dafar and south Sudan while the former is merely a run of the mill thug whose has opponents murdered in small groups.

Notwithstanding this, I don't think Obama is guilty of hypocrisy here. In his March 2011 statement on Libya, Obama indicated that the situation was 'special',

"....It's true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country — Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground...."

As the quote implies, Obama sought to make a distinction between the Libyan situation and other situations that would come up. In addition, in the Libyan case, the anti Gadhafi forces had control of a huge contiguous territory and that made the logistics of aiding them much easier (of course, Obama seems to have vastly underestimated the problem in Libya but that is just a mistake, not hypocrisy). Some people have pointed out a cynical difference between the Libyan situation and others. In Libya, a putative massacre would result in lots of gory images and victims who speak English saying 'why didn't you help us?' whereas that is less likely in the Nuba mountains where telecommunications are almost non existent.


The TNR opinion piece is here. A report on the potential for genocide of people in the area of the Nuba mountains is here. Obama's "Responsibility to Act" speech on Libya is here.

The Hypocrisy Defense: Is it Political Suicide

Zombie is a blogger who frequently writes for Pajamas Media. Zombie is conservative and lives in San Francisco. He is mildly famous for documenting the many anti Bush rallies in SF where Bush was compared to Hitler.

Zombie has a post in which he states that the hypocrisy defense (e.g., "at least Weiner is not a hypocrite because he never preached morality) is political suicide for liberals.

The argument zombie makes is one in which he asserts that to use the hypocrisy defense, you have to base it on the premise that you have no fundamental moral values and this is a bad thing politically.

I would argue that a number of liberals have survived 'moral' scandal (e.g., Rep Barney Frank and his relationship with a male stripper, former President Bill Clinton and Monica) and a number of conservatives have also survived scandal (e.g., Senator Vitter and his relationship with a call girl). The empirical evidence doesn't seem decisive one way or another.



Zombie's post is here.

A Slate writer defends Hypocrisy in the case of Representative Anthony Weiner.

Slate is a webzine, once owned by Microsoft, now owned by the Washington Post. Almost all the writers are left of center, some more so.

A Slate writer, one Jessica Dweck, has an article called, "The Case for Tolerating Left-Wing Lotharios" Slate calls it, "In Defense of Sex Double Standards "

My favorite part of Jessica's post is,

"...

Why didn’t this salacious, potentially career-destroying story [referring to the tweet of underwear from Representative Weiner's Twitter account] generate the same insta-circus as “Craigslist Congressman” Chris Lee’s beefcake photos or any one of the many GOP sex scandals over the last several years? It’s due in part to the journalistic torpor of the long holiday weekend, but—let’s be honest—it’s also because he’s an outspoken liberal. And that’s not a bad thing.

Conservatives might cry foul over the double standard in reporting on sex scandals for Democrats and Republicans, but it’s justified..."

Jessica conflates conservatives and Republicans but, nonetheless, her point is semi coherent. She believes that any opposition to any form of abortion is objectively wrong or at least subjectively wrong from the point of women (I'm not sure which it is).

If one believes the former, then being hypocritical is simply a tactic. Of course its not clear if this justifies all hypocrisy or only hypocrisy by women but whichever, this is a refreshing statement by a self identified liberal Democrat.


The Slate piece is here.

More on the War Powers Act

Back in March 2011, I commented on the previous statements of (now President) Obama, (now Secretary of State) Clinton and (now Vice President) Biden when they were US Senators regarding the War Powers Act.

In April 2011 there was a lengthy article in the Harvard National Security Review by Michael J. Glennon. Unlike myself, Mr. Glennon believes the War Powers Act is constitutional (he cites an opinion by the Office of Legal Council in the last days of the Carter Administration among his arguments on that point.

Mr. Glennon is mightily ticked by what he feels are 'empty words' by these former Senators, now members of the executive branch. He adds to this 'they said that back then, they say this now' group former Professor Harold Koh. Mr. Koh is now in the executive branch, a legal adviser to the US State Department.

Mr. Glennon never uses the word 'hypocrisy', for which I give him an 'attaboy'. This is because he looks at the arguments used to distinguish the situation in Libya from earlier cases and proclaims these arguments 'faulty', 'dubious', etc. rather than hypocritical.

Glennon's paper is here.

Requiring Sonograms vs Preventing Unnecessary Medical Procedures

The Florida legislature (the GOP has a majority in both houses) has apparently passed a bill that, with some exceptions would require a woman who intends to have an abortion to first have a sonogram. The Governor (a Republican) apparently intends to sign it. My brother points out that this is a medically unnecessary measure (for the woman intending the abortion). He also points out that, at least at the national level, the GOP wishes (or at least some do) to require national restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits because that threat of the lawsuits incentivise unncecessary medical tests.

Is this hypocrisy?

Well, one of my requirements for hypocrisy could be called the same person requirement. That is, if Smith says 'x' and Jones then does 'not x', it can't be called hypocrisy. As an example, if the Florida legislature does something that a national legislature says not to do, it isn't hypocrisy by my definition.

The other problem here is that the Florida legislature could argue that the sonogram, while not medically necessary for the pregnant woman, is medically necessary for some babbies, that is, those babbies who would be born if the woman sees the sonogram but not otherwise. This is, I think, based on the emotional power of the sonogram to show the human features of a fetus and the theory that the law should, in some degree, protect the rights of the fetus. The legal theory is one that is an iffy matter of opinion but with respect to the emotional power of the sonogram, it seems the evidence is pretty strong. In fact, I didn't use a sonogram as the image for this post as it seemed to me a bit too emotionally strong.

Article of legislative initiative here.

Governor's intent to sign sonogram law here.

Pro-life organization website here. Abortion images are high on their content list but sonogram images are also on the list.

President Obama 2010 vs President Obama 2011

On April 13, 2011 President Obama gave a fiscal policy speech at GWUniversity (image is from that event).

This paragraph is from the speech,

"...One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates...

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves."

This is what Obama said back in 2010 during conciliatory discussions preceding a vote on the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare).

"...And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a series discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized, whatever proposals are put out there, as, well, you know, that's -- the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens; that the other party is doing X, Y, Z."

So is President Obama being a hypocrite (lets ignore the issue of whether the April 13 speech is partisan, dishonest or inaccurate)?

Consider this. If President Obama doesn't want to do anything about entitlements, then characterizing the Republican proposals as being irresponsible is the correct strategy as indicated by his January 2010 remarks. Indeed, in the January 2010 remarks (many made in response to questions, including the extract above), nowhere could I find a statement such as "I will refrain from partisan attacks on my opponents" or "I will not demagogue" or any such similar remark. Granted, one could infer the January 2010 remarks seem to imply that but since it is not explicit, it could be a wrong inference.

No hypocrisy.

Transcript of April 13, 2011 speech here.
Transcript of Jan 2010 speech here.

Mikulski Calls on House Republicans to End Hypocrisy

Rarely do I get a hypocrisy accusation on the website of a sitting US Senator. But this title comes from a post on the website of Senator Barbara Mikulski. What is more, Senator uses the word 'hypocrisy' many times in her post and even defines it. Here is a quote from the post,

"...Mr. President, my colleague has talked about one disease in Washington, but I’m going to talk about another disease that seems to be running rampant over in the House Republican caucus and that is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy. And the reason I say that is that they say one thing and they mean another. They say one thing and they deceive the American public.

The reason I call it “hypocrisy” is this: What they say they want to do, which is reduce government spending, is not what they are doing. Sure, I’m for a government that’s more frugal. I’m for cuts. But I’m not for their cuts. What they propose is reckless and radical. And when they don’t get their own way, they say, ‘Cut it or shut it.’..."

Of course this has one problem in that there is no actual reference or link to any actual statement of the House Republican caucus. This is a bad enough problem and a common one. Mikulski is paraphrasing the caucus which makes it impossible to check it out accurately. But there is a more amusing problem. She says, the House Republican caucus wants to "which is to reduce government spending, is not what they are doing." But then she says, "I'm not for their cuts. What they propose is reckless and radical...". So apparently, the caucus does want to reduce spending but she doesn't like the way they want to do it (and she isn't specific either which is another problem). Thus, Mikulski has changed her definition of hypocrisy just a few sentences after defining it. This is a remarkable case of a misapplication of the term.

Later on in the post, Mikulski makes a point about a possible shutdown of the government.

"... I did that backing Senator Barbara Boxer’s bill, which passed the Senate, that said if there is a shutdown, members of Congress don’t get paid. Now, what did the House Republicans do? They passed a bill that allows Members of Congress and the President to receive retroactive payment. Now, the Senate bill doesn’t do that. So they would be the only ones in shutdown that can come back and pick up their paycheck. You talk about hypocrisy. That’s called bait-and-switch."

This is a more normal example of a misapplication of the word 'hypocrisy'. Mikulski does not say (never mind cite) where the House Republicans said "Representatives and Senators should not be paid in the event of a government shutdown". She doesn't even hint that she has anything like that to bring forward. She simply disagrees with a bill passed by the House.

Mikulski then has another charge of hypocrisy to bring,

"...They want to take away Medicare and turn it into a voucher program, but they sure are happy picking up their government health care. They love to get federally subsidized health care. They want to take away other people’s pension, but they sure like getting their federal employee pensions. I want to put an end to the hypocrisy..."

As I understand her, the hypocrisy is 'proposing vouchers for medicare while participating in an existing non voucher system for employment based health care. This combines two typical misapplications of the term hypocrisy. Medicare is not the same as employment based health care. It might be that vouchers are good for one and not for the other or that vouchers are good for general retirement purposes and some employment but not for other employment or that vouchers would even be good for Government based employment but that it would take time to develop a proposal. The other comparison is between a proposed system and an existing system. One might propose a higher tax on some product or service but until the proposal is passed, one pays the existing rate.

In my opinion, the entire speech shows sloppy thinking (it is also hard to follow as it changes subjects quickly).

Mikulski post is here.

A General Hypocrisy Complaint Against the Left

The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Joe Scarborough. Mr. Scarborough was a congressman during much of the 1990s (and I dealt with his office and it was actually an experience with a good outcome). He is currently the host of an opinion/news program on MSNBC.

The opinion piece is called, "The hypocrisy of the American left".

The general point is that the 'left' criticized Bush and lefts Obama off the hook for doing the same thing and the secondary point is that the 'left' says 'yes' to the Libyan action and 'no' to a Syrian action.

Unfortunately, Scarborough wants to blame an entity called the 'left' without defining it. The only 'left' group that he identifies by name as having policies on both the Bush actions and the Obama actions is "Code Pink". He fails to quote their policy or give a hotlink.

Sorry. The hypocrisy charge is too mushy to evaluate.


The WSJ piece is here. The image was taken from the opinion piece.

Obama and Libya: Is it hypocrisy?

Back in 2007, then Senator Obama said (in response to a question which is also below):

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."

However, a few days ago, now President Obama announced that he had ordered military action against Libya. Within a few days, this action included over a hundred tomahawk missiles and other strikes.

Is Obama a hypocrite?

Frankly, I would say he has instead, in the four years between his "President does not...." statement and the present, changed his mind without telling anyone. I think this because his statement back in 2007 was based on a reading of the War Powers Act which some in Congress (and some law school Professors) think is constitutional but which Presidents typically do not.

The Constitution (article 2, section 2) give the President broad powers. The War Powers Act has a lot of language in it but, as I understand it, probably 90% of the legal scholars in the country think the latter is unconstitutional since it limits a constitutional enumerated power of the President (and does so to empower a the branch of government that passed the act over a Presidential veto back in 1973).

No hypocrisy but Obama should have admitted that he changed his mind on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

Interestingly, then Senator Clinton and then Senator Biden had essentially the same position as then Senator Obama in 2007.

Also interestingly, the Washington Post has an editorial today not only agreeing with Senator Obama's 2011 position and also claiming the two positions are not in conflict (they do this by pretending the 2007 Obama position was about war rather than military action).

The quote of Obama's 2007 remark is here.
Text of Obama's 2011 statement is here.
Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution is here.
War Powers Act information is here.
A site comparing Obama's and HRClinton's 2007 statements on this subject is here.
Biden's 2007 comments on the subject here. Biden's statement is the most definitive (and pompous) of the three.
WaPo editorial here.
Dept of Justice April 1, 2011 Memo (although it is obviously not an April 1 joke) here determining that the Use of Military Force in Libya was legal (yes, it directly contradicts Obama's 2007 position but of course it is the DOJ, not Obama).

The Hypocrisy of Some Intellectuals.

Tariq Alhomayed (shown to the left) is the editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat (The Middle East). This publication comes out in English and Arabic and possibly other languages. It is owned by the Saudi Government and sometimes has opinion pieces by westerners (e.g., David Ignatius of the Washington Post). It is presumed to be read by the upper class in the Arab world.

This is a good example of the word hypocrisy being used just because it sounds good. I can't figure out which intellectuals are being accused of hypocrisy. In fact, in the editorial it actually accuses the street (I think this means the Arab underclass) of hypocrisy, not intellectuals. Of course I also can't figure out what the hypocrisy actually is. The editorial begins by explaining a government funding scandal, then criticizes people who generalize and then discusses a number of other loosely related issues.

The whole thing is so incomprehensible, I can't even analyze it at all.


Here is the editorial.

Obama vs Leakers vs Promise of Openness

The website Politico has a piece today that, while not using the word 'hypocrisy', seems to accuse President Obama of hypocrisy. The piece has the following,

"The Obama administration, which famously pledged to be the most transparent in American history, is pursuing an unexpectedly aggressive legal offensive against federal workers who leak secret information to expose wrongdoing, highlight national security threats or pursue a personal agenda.

In just over two years since President Barack Obama took office, prosecutors have filed criminal charges in five separate cases involving unauthorized distribution of classified national security information to the media....That’s a sharp break from recent history, when the U.S. government brought such cases on three occasions in roughly 40 years."

The campaign promise of openness is, I think, embedded in Obama's, Jan 21, 2009 memo to heads of departments. Here is what I think is the key part of that memo (the Politico piece did not link to a 'promise' so this is the best I could do),

"...All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA...."

However, it should be clear to anyone that when Obama was promising openness, he wasn't giving up the option of prosecuting people who leaked government secrets. FOIA and protection of classified information are simply different topics.

No hypocrisy.

BTW, This is an area in which I've had some experience. I'm not in favor of the presumption of disclosure in FOIA (as Obama proclaimed) because of the burden it places on the government and the fact that it encourages frivolous FOIA requests. I think his memo shows either naivety or deceit. This, however, is irrelevant to the hypocrisy implication of the Politico piece.

Also, I think the claim by Obama supporters circa 2008, that the Bush administration was hiding information, persecuting whistle blowers, etc. was grossly exaggerated and used deceitfully to raise campaign funds (and votes) for Obama. This, is similarly irrelevant to analysis of the Politico piece.

Here is the Politico piece. The image I used is the one in that article.
Here is Obama's Jan 21, 2009 memo on openess.

Mike Huckabee, Natalie Portman and Hypocrisy The DemocraticUnderground (DU) explicitly charged former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee with hypocrisy. The contention is that Huckabee criticized Portman's pregnancy outside of wedlock while taking a forgiving position on Bristol Palin's pregnancy out of wedlock. The DU post says that this is what Huckabee said about the out of wedlock pregnancy of Bristol Palin,
" The way the media went after the daughter is the most shameful thing I’ve ever seen in my life. If anything, it just caused to run to her. Everyone understands that the basis of being a Christian is that everyone has fallen short of God’s ideal. Everyone understands that....We all mess up, the issue is how we respond to it. What she showed us is exactly what we wanted to see in terms of a witness."
A commenter on the DU site provides the following comment that Huckabee made regarding the out of wedlock pregnancy of Jamie Spears (younger sister of Brittany),

" "It's a tragedy when a 16-year-old who is not really prepared for all the responsibilities of adult life is going to be now faced with all the responsibilities of honest-to-goodness adult life. I respect it."

"Apparently, she's going to have the child and I think that is the right decision, a good decision, and I respect that and appreciate it. I hope it is not an encouragement to other 16-year-olds who think that is the best course of action."

"But at the same time I'm not going to condem her. There'll be plenty of people in line to do that and I always look for the shortest lines. I just hope that she will make another right decision and that's to give that child all the love and kindness and care that she can."
The DU gives what seems a link to Huckabee's comment about Portman but the link is broken. However, I found the following at a DC area Fox News site,


"You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie."

"Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job," he continued, "and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing."

"You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock, 61 percent of Hispanic kids — across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering."

I don't see this as a criticism of Portman but of the imaging of a pregnant Portman sans spouse as glamorous. However, some people took it to mean that Huckabee said that Portman should not have attended the Hollywood Event. Huckabee must have heard or seen this and posted the following on his own Huckabee Political Action Committee site,

"However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not "slam" or "attack" Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hard-working single mothers in our country. My comments were about the statistical reality that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death. That's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that society often glorifies and glamorizes the idea of having children out of wedlock."
Certainly I would agree that the thrust of Huckabee's comments about Bristol Palin and Jamie Spears is different that the thrust of his comment about Portman. However, neither Palin nor the younger Spears was dressed in evening wear attending the Oscars. Huckabee could also have said that since Palin was 19 and Spears 17 when they became pregnant outside of marriage, Portman was 29. Portman also had a college degree (she got a degree in 2003 majoring in Psychology from Harvard U) at the time she became pregnant. Clearly the two younger women are a different case although one could have sympathy for Portman based on her (Portman's) hypothetical biological clock fears. However, this is small potatoes given the fact that Huckabee specifically said he did not mean to criticize her.
No hypocrisy.
Btw, I worked with Huckabee's office in 2006 when I was chairing an international conference in Little Rock, Arkansas (he was Governor then). I found his office to be incompetent. They gave me incorrect information several times and couldn't meet their own self established deadlines for giving me a response on several items.

Btw, Bristol Palin is part of what I consider to be one of the most astoundingly stupid conspiracy theories of all time. It comes from Andrew Sullivan, who was with The Atlantic at the time he came up with it. The theory is that Trig Palin is not the child of Sarah Palin but the child of Bristol Palin.


Here is the DUndergound 'discuss' kick off.
Here is the Fox New article with the Huckabee quote.
Here is the post at the Huckabee PA Committee site.
Here is a discussion of Sullivan's 'Trig' theory.
Here is Sullivan in 2009 discussing his (the Sullivan) theory.
Here is a piece from 2008 claiming photographic proof that Sarah Palin was not the mother of Trig
Here is a piece by a professor at Cornell listing all the people who would have had to be in on the conspiracy to have it work.

Is ABC's "Made in America' Series Hypocritical?

An accusation is within the title of a post on the FAIR blog (FAIR = "Facts and Accuracy in Reporting).

As I understand this, FAIR contends that one of the ABC episodes in the "Made in America" series, focused on consumer products and 'discovered' that a large amount (at least in one home) were made overseas, mostly in China (I'm going to pass over the obvious problem here that a sample of one home isn't very scientific and, in fact, I'm willing to bet most of the products used in the building of that house were made in this county. Yes, the whole ABC program is merely infotainment as far as I'm concerned).

FAIR contends, again, as I understand this, that the series should focus also (or possibly mainly) on corporate purchasing and further that the Disney Corporation (which has owned ABC since the mid 1990s) should be singled out for investigation and exposure and that not doing so is hypocritical. There is also a series of statements to the effect that Disney is a 'outsourcer'.

I'm going to list just some of the reasons why I don't think this is hypocrisy.

1. The ABC program's thrust is to encourage future actions (i.e., buy US products in the future) and thus Disney's prior purchases of foreign products is not 'undoable'.

2. Just how much of Disney's purchases are foreign anyway? Is it 20%, 30%, 40% and how did this compare with the aggregate of consumer purchases? Maybe, in a quantitative sense, Disney's purchases are more "US-centric" than the average consumer.

3. Suppose Disney purchased only US made products and those products were more expensive and required Disney to reduce its US work force. Wouldn't that be counter productive?

4. Granted the choice of what to cover in the ABC program is subjective. So what. Isn't that the nature of infotainment. Wouldn't the ABC program have a difficult time investigating the Disney Corp.'s use of 'foreign products' given the complexity of the supply chain (Disney buys products from China but some of those products use US parts or were designed in the US).

5. This entire argument shows ignorance of the principle of comparative advantage. If the US produces ' creative content' better than China and China produces toys better that the US, both countries benefit by the US concentrating on the former and China concentrating on the latter.


FAIR blog post is here and an action alert here. My brother relayed a request from a friend of his to me to analyze this.