Eric Trump - is there hypocrisy in the long rant

Eric Trump, born in 1984, is the 3rd child of Ivana and Donald Trump.

Two seeming statements were made (I think) by Eric in an interview that Irwin found to be potentially a case of hypocrisy.

One statement, referring to critics of Donald Trump (or possibly of all the Trump family or possibly just Eric Trump) was

‘...To me, they’re not even people’

another (which is in the news report on the interview but I couldn't find it in the transcript) was,  referring, I think, to Democratic Legislators,

 

“I’ve never seen hatred like this..."

Both statements were, I think, part of a relatively long interview. Some background on this is needed to understand the context.

Eric Trump is involved in a number of activities. One of them is philanthropy.  Eric is the CEO of the Eric Trump Foundation which is the mechanism by which the philanthropy is carried out. The ET foundation is under investigation by the State of NY.  The reason seems to be that money from the ET foundation went to pay for the use of golf clubs belonging to the Trump Organization (the second image is from 2008 and shows Rudy Guliani, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Joe Torre on one of the Trump Golf Courses - this was I think part of a fundraising event for the Donald Trump Foundation) and this was either not declared properly or that it is something foundations shouldn't do (I don't understand much about the subject of charitable foundations).

This is just too confusing to call it hypocrisy. First of all the transcript doesn't follow the news report very well. Secondly, Eric Trump seems to be discussing two or more issues. Thus the two statements do not seem to be aimed at the same people. If it were the same people, it would be a case of a contradiction not hypocrisy since Eric Trump has never said, "Don't call people inhuman" and then called them 'not even human'.  

The video and a news report of the Eric Trump interview is here.

The transcript of the Eric Trump interview (it has others first so the interview begins about 80% down in the file) is here.

As a bonus an article on why 'strategic charity' frequently fails (Eric Trump must never have read this) is  here.

Katy Perry and the 'No Walls' hypocrisy

Entertainer Katy Perry has said, that, following the Manchester England terror bombing, 

"... I think that the greatest thing we can do is just unite and love on each other. No barriers, no borders, we all just need to co-exist."

Katy Perry bought some property in Beverly Hills earlier this year. It had lots of security.

Katy's comment about 'no barriers' while being protected by barriers is similar to comments made by former President Obama and Pope Francis but Katy is prettier. 

There is some hypocrisy here but also obliviousness since the 'no barrier comments' are merely vapid expressions of virtue or hoped for virtue.

Katy Perry's purchase of property in Beverly Hills from an article in Variety.

The Sun's report on extra security for the next concert is here.

US News and World Report article about Obama says we shouldn't hide behind walls is here.
TMZ report on the walls under construction in Jan 2017 at Obama's post presidency residence is here.

Reuters report on the Pope's objection to walls is here.
Trip Advisor image of massive Vatican City Wall is here.

Is Sulu (George Takei) a hypocrite

George Takai played Sulu on various Star Trek products.  He began as an Ensign and by the time of 'The Wrath of Khan', he was a full commander.  Takai is a frequent tweeter with an extensive audience who get his tweets aka, his tweet followers.

Takai sent out a tweet recently with an instagram photo of Pope Francis, President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump and the President's daughter from an earlier marriage (and advisor) Ivanka Trump.  Takai apparently complains that the dark clothes of the ladies signal dark times for our government.

Back in 2009, at about the same stage of his Presidency, then President Obama and First Lady Michelle met with a different Pope. Michelle wore about the same thing in 2009 as Melania did in 2017 (see image 2).  Not a peep out of Takai back then.

Hypocrisy? Probably not. First of all Takai may not have an account back then as twitter was relatively new. Also, Takai is, as pointed out by many other blogs, a drama queen (even if he was hetero this would be the description) who, for example, has repeatedly escalated and the de-escalated his various disputes with William Shatner for no apparently reason.



George Takai's tweet is here

ABC news report on July 2009 meeting between the Obamas and the Pope is here.


Photo of Pope Benedict, then President Obama and then First Lady Michele Obama is from Zimbio taken in July 2009.

Senator Schumer and the James Comey Pivot

Back in June 2016, after recommending against prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Charles Schumer liked then FBI Director James Comey.

In early November 2016, just before the Presidential election but after Comey had reopened the Clinton email investigation based on newly discovered e-mails, Schumer declared that Comey was untrustworthy. In the cartoon, a cartoonist, makes the same point.

In May 2017, after President Trump fired Comey, Schumer declared the firing a major mistake because, in Schumer's opinion, Comey was investigating the Trump-Russia linkage. The 1st picture shows a 2003 visit by Putin to NYC where Putin appeared with a smiling Schumer; this was after a Russian oil company opened a gas station in Brooklyn, NY. 

Schumer is not the only one who has changed their mind on Comey. Democrats have done so and Republicans (including Trump) have done so but at opposite times. The Republican National Committee put together a video of Democrats who changed their mind about Comey. The Democrats could do something similar, but as best as I can tell have not done so.

I've picked on Schumer only because he is the Minority Leader of the U.S. Senate, because he claims to have gotten a perfect SAT score (there is no way to determine if this is true) and he loves TV attention but doesn't seem to realize how phony and sanctimonious he sounds.

Is it hypocrisy?

Apparently, there is a way to be both against Comey and against Comey's firing based on 'timing'. The theory being that Comey is investigating the Russia-Trump linkage (although Comey isn't doing the investigation himself, he was, among other things, in charge of supervising the allocation of FBI investigative resources to the various activities they have underway).  This is the position that the NYTimes takes in an editorial (although they don't seem to realize that Comey is not an investigator).  Personally, I consider this position absurd (and the acting director stated in a Congressional hearing that there was adequate resources for the Russia-Trump investigation) but I admit that if you are determined to do so, it is possible to convince yourself of it.

Washington Examiner article in Nov 2016 where Schumer has lost confidence in Comey is here.

Washington Examiner article in May 2017 where Schumer attacks Trump for firing Comey is here.

NYtimes  editorial stating that Comey is untrustworthy and simultaneously stating that firing Comey is not only wrong but puts the nation in peril is here.

Schumer's claim of a perfect SAT score is here.

Picture of Schumer and Putin from ChiTribune article here.

Trump's Hypocrisy is Praised by Left and Right

President Donald Trump ordered a 59 missile strike on a Syrian airfield on April 7, 2017 (image shows some of the damage to the airfield).

During the 2016 campaign, then candidate Trump criticized US overseas military operations repeatedly. He also indicated that the US should take care of its home business first.

The strike was against the Syrian airfield, which was the one that launched a chemical warfare attack against Syrian civilians.  The Trump administration does not claim that American interests were at stake and instead bases the justification for the strike on the fact that the weapons used by Syria were banned and, in fact, Syria claimed not to have such weapons.

The strike against Syria was very popular. It was praised by, among others, former Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain and Senator Chuck Schumer all of whom were, during the Presidential campaign, critics of Trump (and mostly they still are).

It was opposed by very few notable people and I am unable to find a single one who accused Trump of hypocrisy, even though it seems to obviously be such a case.


A report of the April 7, 2017 strike on Syrian is here.

A summary of the pro and anti sides of the Syrian tomahawk strike is here.

An NBC article covering Trump's criticism of US actions overseas including some qualified praise of Saddam Hussain is here.

Back to the pro filibuster side for the NYTimes

The Supreme Court as Partisan Tool

 
On April 4, 2017, the NYTimes had an editorial opposing the possible elimination of the filibuster for Supreme Court Nominees. This is yet another chapter in the NYTimes shifting position on this issue.

The image is from that editorial.
 

In 1995, the NYTimes was anti filibuster.(a Democrat was President).

In 2005, the NYTimes was pro filibuster (a Republican was President).

In 2012, (the Democrat was President), the NYTimes went anti filibuster.

Now, after the Republicans took the Presidency, the NYTimes likes the filibuster again.

The 1995-2012 situation was the subject of the 2012 post on this website. It is here. It provides links to the 1995, 2005 and 2012 NYTimes editorials.

The 2017 editorial by the NYTimes is here.  It is filled with a lot of justifications but given the way the editorial position favors the policy side that the NYTimes favors, its pretty obvious that the justifications are a smokescreen.

Senator Warren and Equal Pay

Back in April 2016, Senator Elizabeth Warren made a long statement about equal pay for women and also tweeted about it.

The tweet is below

 Elizabeth Warren ✔ @SenWarren

#EqualPayDay isn’t a national day of celebration. It’s a national day of embarrassment.

4:51 PM - 12 Apr 2016

 

A pretty good chunk of the transcript of Warren's statement is here.  

The transcript notes that in some recent year women received 79% of the income of men, mentions the phrase 'equal work for equal pay' a number of times and says the system is 'rigged' a number of times.

A reporter dug into the final wage figures for Warren's staffers in 2016 and found that, in that office, the women were paid 71% (substantially below the national figure).

Most of the report on Warren's staff's wages is here (from within an opinion post).

So is it a case of hypocrisy. Actually it may not be. Warren calls for 'equal pay for equal work' but the individual staffers each do different work, for example (from the report), 

":..Among employees employed the entire year, only one woman, Warren’s director of scheduling, earned a six-figure salary, at $100,624.88. Five men—Warren’s director of oversight and investigations ($156,000), legislative director ($149,458), deputy chief of staff ($119,375), Massachusetts state director ($152,310), and deputy state director ($113,750)—earned more than Warren’s highest paid woman staffer in 2016...."

So, if  Warren is only calling for equal pay for equal work, there is not hypocrisy. Of course, Warren also calls the system rigged, etc. Of course if she really believed the rhetoric, you'd think the office wages would demonstrate that.

The Boston Globe and some visuals

The Boston Globe tweeted/instagramed a message today.

It was commenting on the portrait of Melania Trump.

Below is the tweet portion (the instagram portion is the portrait of Melania to the upper left).


The Boston Globe ✔ @BostonGlobe

The White House released an official portrait of Melania Trump. So what’s with the crossed arms? http://bos.gl/kZspjrx 

7:54 PM - 4 Apr 2017

Apparently, the Boston Globe wants readers to think this pose is strange.

Well, the next two images are official portraits of former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama.  

These portraits were made by the White House and were in the NY Times in 2013. A site to see them is here.

Well there are 4 years between the pictures and its possible that the Boston Globe has changed its mind about people crossing their hands. Its also possible the tweeter didn't know the Obamas had ever crossed their hands. Most likely though the Boston Globe tweeter was just being snarky (which is not actual hypocrisy but just sour journalism).

Avoiding a Contradiction with an Adjective Caveat Clause

Yesterday, President Barack Obama gave a farewell address.

I was amused by his reference to terrorism,

"... Because of the extraordinary courage of our men and women in uniform, because of our intelligence officers and law enforcement and diplomats who support our troops --
no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland these past eight years.
And although Boston and Orlando and San Bernardino and Fort Hood remind us of how dangerous radicalization can be, our law enforcement agencies are more effective and vigilant than ever....."

It seems to say first that there were no terrorist attacks and then to list 4 of them.

However, Obama (image from the speech) used a few extra words. In the 'no terrorist attack' sentence, the first word that caveats the sentence is 'foreign'. Then in an adjective clause, 'successfully planned and executed', the 'no terrorist attack' sentence has a further caveat. Thus we have Obama claiming to have stopped attacks and also claiming credit for having law enforcement learning from attacks. 

Transcript of the speech is here.

Tillerson, Russia, and hypocrisy

The title of the post is not mine but from a post by Paul Mirengoff on the blog Powerline (first image is Mirengoff).

Mirengoff is a retired attorney who currently is head of an organization in Minnesota that advocates for lower taxes and less regulation.  

Mirengoff wrote this post, apparently anticipating that people who support the nomination of Rex Tillerson (second image is Tillerson) for Secretary of State will criticize people who oppose Tillerson on grounds of hypocrisy.  Mirengoff anticipates that much of this criticism will wrongly cite hypocrisy (there are of course other grounds to oppose this nomination).  I can't remember someone anticipating incorrect hypocrisy criticism before.





Mirengoff's post is here.

Harry Reid Praises FBI director's integrity then reverses

Back in July 2016, Reid praised the FBI Director, James Comey as a man of integrity. This was after Comey decided (or possibly recommended) no prosecution for presumptive Presidential nominee (and former Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton. That was in regard to the matter of the emails. 

A bit later and Reid criticized Comey when Comey revealed the existence of Clinton email on the hard drive of a laptop computer belonging to former US Representative Anthony Weiner (image of Reid is from an article on that).

Then after the CIA said that Russia may be behind the Wikileak promulgation of email copied from various computer servers, Reid said Comey should be investigated.

This might be considered hypocrisy but it is, I think, simply the maximal partisanship of a very partisan individual.  In fact Reid is so partisan that he is completely unapologetic for what is arguably a bald face 2012 lie about Mitt Romney (when confronted (in 2015) with the fact that his accusation that Romney hadn't paid income tax was untrue and that he didn't actually have a source for his accusation, Reid said it was OK since Romney wasn't elected (the Washington Post called it an 'appalling defense')



Youtube collection of praise for FBI Director James Comey (in July 2016)  here (at about 22 seconds of the video)

Politico article where Reid says Comey may have broken law (Oct 2016).

The Hill article where Harry Reid (in Dec 2016) says FBI director should be investigated re: allegation of Russian interference in election.

WaPo Article where Reid is unapologetic for 2012 false accusation Romney.

Some Issues with Madonna

Madonna has had some amusing things to say which, while not hypocrisy are close to it.

One such was her promise to give oral sex to anyone who voted (in the 2016 Presidential Election) for Hillary Clinton (this was during an introduction to Amy Schumer - Madonna is on the left of the image, Amy on the right). 

A man came by Madonna's hotel room the day of the election with a photo (from his cell phone) of himself voting for Hillary. 

Madonna didn't come out but a security guard responded that he would not get the promised oral sex. 

Oddly, or perhaps not, this seems to be the only case where someone wanted her to make good on the promise.

Another Madonna story is close to hypocrisy.  This comes from a wide ranging interview that Madonna gave to Billboard (an on line web zine and print magazine). She was, I think, wearing the apparel in the second image.

Among the subjects covered was Madonna's opinion of Donald Trump (the interview was taken several days after the 2016 Election when the results were known).

Billboard asked the following:

As a fellow New Yorker, have you ever met the president-elect?

 

Madonna's answer was:

 

I wouldn’t call him a friend or ­anything, but I’ve certainly met him. I did a photo shoot years ago at [Trump’s] Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach [Fla.] for a Versace campaign. He’s a very friendly guy, ­charismatic in that ­boastful, macho, alpha-male way. I found his political incorrectness amusing. Of course, I didn’t know he was going to be running for ­president 20 years later. People like that exist in the world, I’m OK with it. They just can’t be heads of state. I just can’t put him and Barack Obama in the same ­sentence, same room, same job description.

 

Interestingly, the final sentence of Madonna's answer contains both an unqualified assertion and a contradiction of that assertion. This is probably just an example of mistaken work use. When Madonna said, "I just can't...", she undoubtedly meant, "I am unhappy..." or something similar.

Story about Madonna's promise is here.
The Billboard interview is here.

An Atheist Explains His Apparent Hypocrisy

Phil Zuckerman (image on left) is a professor at Pitzer College in California. He is an atheist.  He was asked to explain his frequent criticism of Christianity and Mormonism while avoiding criticism of Islam (apparent double standard or maybe even hypocrisy). 

Here is what he said,

"...“I know what keeps me from critiquing Islam on my blog is just fear,” Phil Zuckerman said at a discussion on religious liberty at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. “I’ve got three kids.

“So I know I can say anything about Christianity or Mormonism, and I’m not living in fear, which is a testament to Christianity and Mormonism, and that’s wonderful. Thank you,” said Zuckerman, who is a self-described atheist and professor of secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif...."

Is this actually hypocrisy? Well, one matter that makes this different is that he isn't 'doing what he said not to do' but rather 'not doing what his thoughts imply'. Another matter is that he is open about the reason for the 'not doing what his thought imply'. Thus, I don't think I can actually call this hypocrisy.

The source for this is here.

Nuanced Brexit Hypocrisy - Emily Badger

Emily Badger (image on the left) works for the Washington Post and is an opinion journalist.   She is a contributor to the Washington Post's wonkblog. She had a post that opinions that the Brexit vote shouldn't have been taken to the people. 

Here is part of the post,

"... this [the Brexit vote result] was, perhaps, predictable, as some political scientists and historians have warned that a simple yes-or-no public referendum can be a terrible way to make a decision with such complex repercussions...David A. Bell, a Princeton historian [of French History and professor - his image is above]... argues that the result of referendums is much more often anti-democratic. He divides referendums into two categories: The first implicates fundamental questions of sovereignty (should Quebec become independent, or Scotland break away from Great Britain?). These kinds of referendums are appropriate...."


Her only argument against the Brexit vote involves appealing to the authority of exactly one person. Furthermore, and more astonishingly, it appears that the Brexit is exactly the kind of referendum that Professor Bell would find appropriate.

In fact, Badger actually sees the weakness in this argument,


"....Brexit supporters certainly cast the question as one of fundamental sovereignty and "independence" from Europe...."

Thus Badger has to resort to another authority. This is what she comes up with,

"...Martin Kettle [image on left], an editor at the Guardian in the U.K., argued last Thursday, before the final vote, that Brexit should itself be a referendum on referendums, "now the weapon of choice for populist parties of left and right":There may, in certain circumstances, be an argument for referendums in our politics. But the argument has to be better than that we have had some referendums in the past or that a lot of the public would like one. People will always agree they want a say....[but Kettle goes on to oppose the referendum choice. He makes an argument I can't follow]"

Badger has also opined against voter ID and for early voting. It would be interesting if she were asked if she was against voter ID and for early voting in the Brexit referendum.

It's possible that there is some logic to her appeal to two authorities even though I can't follow it.  However, all I can see is someone who doesn't like the outcome of a vote and seeks to find a reason why it is somehow logically invalid while using an argument that goes against the conclusion she favors. Thus I call it hypocrisy.



Badger's post regarding the Brexit vote is here.
Badger's anti voter ID opinion is here. 
Badget's pro early voting opinion is here.


.

Hillary Clinton and Radical Islam and Hypocrisy

Back in November 2015, former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton spoke at the Council of Foreign Relations (Image is from that event).

Part of this was in regard to attacks by moslems on US targets where the attacker shouts out 'Allah Akbar' or is connected to ISIS or similar evidence. Hillary said,

 ".... Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization or repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction. It gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side...."

Now, in June 2016, in a phone interview with The Hill (that's a media organization), Hillary said,

 "From my perspective, it matters what we do, not what we say. It matters that we got bin Laden, not what name we called him, but if he is somehow suggesting I don't call this for what it is, he hasn't been listening.... [the US is facing terrorist enemies] that use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people....We have to stop them, and we will. We have to defeat radical Jihadist terrorism, and we will..."To me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I'm happy to say either, but that's not the point. All this talk and demagoguery and rhetoric is not going to solve the problem called an "act of terror."..."

So to some up:

November 2015: Hillary wouldn't call attacks 'radical Islam' because it would be counterproductive.
June 2016: Hillary will say  'radical Islam' but its no big deal and doesn't change anything

FWIW, Obama has made a similar, but more complicated change in rhetoric. 

So, it is hypocrisy?

Well, it is a change that happened rather quickly with no reason given for the change and no acknowledgment, not even a hint of one, that a change has been made.  I'll call it hypocrisy.

The November 2015 speech for the Council on Foreign Relations is here. 

The June 2016 interview with The Hill is here.

The Sadness of Kale Hypocrisy Guilt

I found a column written by a food writer who someone perhaps accused of hypocrisy (although that last clause is a guess).

She wrote in sorrow about her role in making kale appear in unsuitable cuisine.

Apparently, about 40 years ago, she had written a pro-kale piece.  It espoused the good things about kale, e.g. nutritional value, flavor absorption; but did not sufficiently emphasize the bad things, e.g., bitterness when cooked dry, tough texture when uncooked.

Now she had this to say (on May 29, 2016),

I’m Sorry for Helping Make Kale Cool

The leafy green is tough, bitter, and completely unsuited for salads, brownies, pizza, and most else. It’s the triumph of cool over taste.

Color it green, black, brown, blue, purple, white, or red.

Call it braunkohl, cavolo nero or riccio, chou frisé, borecole, colewort, yuyi ganlan or brassica oleracea acephala.

In any color and by any name, I know and hate kale when I see it—and these days I see it everywhere: like scorched bits of burned paper atop pizzas, muffled into pesto as a dusty, bitter blanket over pasta and risotto, studded like flecks of parchment into brownies and cookies, muddying up the cool elegance of ice creams and sorbets."

Her column (which is available here) explains her article four decades earlier by saying that kale is good when cooked in oil or fat or a deep sauce (the first image is kale cooked in a sausage sauce, the second is kale cooked with white beans with oil). However, kale is bad when served raw or improperly cooked.

Of course changing your mind is not hypocrisy.

Being imprecise or leaving information out is also not hypocrisy.

But, as I mentioned above, the hypocrisy accusation may have been the cause. Also I like the fact that her column was educational.

Changing your mind vs hypocrisy

day, May 30, 2016

Changing Your Mind vs Hypocrisy 

Donald Trump has, for the past few months criticized Bill Clinton as an abuser of women.

Only a few years ago, Donald Trump was a friend to the Clintons. The first image is from Trump's third marriage to Melania (then Knauss) in 2005. The Clintons received an invitation to the wedding and they attended it. The second image is from 2008 at the Trump Golf Club.  Rudi Giulani is to  Trump's right. Michael Bloomberg is between Trump and Clinton. Clinton has a hand around Joe Torre and Billy Crystal is next to Torre. 

Trump's friendliness to the Clintons extended to at least 2012 as pointed out in an opinion piece by Dean Obeidallah in CNN on line. Obeidallah titles his piece "Trump's Jaw Dropping Hypocrisy over Bill Clinton" (Irwin sent me a link to the piece).  Obeidallah refers to a 2012 interview in which Trump praised both Clintons and predicted that Hillary Clinton would run for President in 2016, notwithstanding the fact that Hillary had recently stated that her then position as Secretary of State would be her last public position.  The Trump interview is available at this site. The Hillary 'last public position' statement is at this site. 

Obeidallah further notes that Trump gave the Clinton Global Initiative at least $100,000. 

A 2015 exchange (report by ABC here) with Senator Rand Paul at a debate went like this:

Paul said, "You've donated to several Democratic candidates. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related affairs".

then Paul continued,  “And you said recently, quote, ‘when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.’” 

“You better believe it,” Trump responded. 

The fact that Trump changes his mind or contradicts himself is not in serious dispute. For example a few days ago, Trump contradicted himself in less than a single sentence (twitter capture is here). The sentence goes,So the Obeidallah point of "jaw dropping" isn't really jaw dropping at all, merely ordinary opinion changing or stream of consciousness muddle. Neither of those are hypocrisy.

More annoyingly, Trump's position on the Clintons may simply be a matter of bribery. His gifts to the Clinton Foundation are, in Trump's own view, something like bribery although legal. His invitation to the Clintons to Trump's wedding was also something like bribery.  Now that he wants the job of President, he can say what he wants. 

If this is going on, it is hypocrisy and is both understandable and awful.

posted by Martin Weiss  # 1:00 PM

Paypal -- Virtue Signaling or Hypocrisy

Paypal recently announced that they would not be expanding a facility they have in Charlotte, N.C.

The reason given by Paypal was opposition to a new State law. As stated in the announcement, 

"...The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture.  As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte..."

The announcement doesn't specify the law.  However, on March 24, the Governor of NC signed  House Bill 2, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. That Act establishes a State policy that requires people to use public bathrooms that correspond with their biological gender. So I assume this is the law that Paypal finds violates its values and culture (although I wonder what would happen in one of PayPal's bathrooms if a biological male decided to use a crowded women's room because he identified as a female that hour).

The possible hypocrisy is because back in 2015, PayPal partnered with Network International to serve the market in Dubai (United Arab Emirates aka UAE). Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code of the UAE states, "Whoever commits rape on a female or sodomy with a male shall be punished by death." A separate law prohibits "... intercourse contrary to nature...".

prohibits “personal intercourse contrary to nature” - See more at: http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/united-arab-emirates-lgbti-resources#sthash.9yyBGwJO.dpuf

prohibits “personal intercourse contrary to nature” - See more at: http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/united-arab-emirates-lgbti-resources#sthash.9yyBGwJO.dpuf

prohibits “personal intercourse contrary to nature” - See more at: http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/united-arab-emirates-lgbti-resources#sthash.9yyBGwJO.dpuf

PayPal also has an office in Moscow, Russia. In that country, transgendered people are prohibited from driving.

So is PayPal being a hypocrite.  In defense of Paypal, in neither Russia nor the UAE does the law specifically prohibit use of bathrooms the way the N.C. law does. Of course, a common sense view of the Russian and UAE law leads to belief that these places are far worse for transgendered (and gays and lesbians and bisexuals) than N.C.

Actually, I think it is also possible that PayPal may have decided not to expand in Charlotte anyway and figured they would use the opportunity to 'virtue signal'.

In either case, based on common sense, it seems to me that PayPal is being hypocritical, although in a more literal sense they are not.


Report on NC bathroom law is here.
Paypal's corporate announcement regarding the Charlotte, NC Expansion is here
Announcement regarding the PayPal operation in the UAE is here 
Info on the law regarding homosexuality in the UAE is here.
Info on cases of enforcement against GLBT is here.
Minimal info on PayPal in Moscow, Russia is here
Article on driving in Russia by Transgendered is here.