Wil Wade case: Is the NCAA Hypocritical

The day before the LSU-Maryland NCAA tournament game, there was an article in the Washington Post. The article was, in essence, a long 'perspective' (which is basically an opinion piece) by a writer, Barry Svrluga, who has been with the newspaper since 2003. 

The title of his perspective was,

"Enjoy Maryland vs. LSU for the basketball. But don’t forget the NCAA’s hypocrisy."

 

I am unable to say for certain what the writer thinks is the hypocrisy . 

However, I think it is because the LSU coach (up until a few days ago), Will Wade aggressively recruited a player and the NCAA ordered him suspended. This while the NCAA has a multiyear contract with with CBS and Turner to broadcast the men’s basketball tournament through 2032. The total tab, over 22 years: $19.8 billion.

In any event, LSU won the game by two points on a shot that a lot of people think was traveling should have been called.

 
.

The Washington Post article is here.

AOC Hamburgers and Campaign Finance

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez produces about 10 tweets a day and lots of other output. She has over 2 million twitter followers, more than any other member of Congress.

One of her most famous pronouncements was that people should give up meat (this was part of the Green New Deal, which I sometimes call the Green Leap Forward - second image is AOC announcing this, Representative Markey of Massachusetts is next to her)

The first image is of AOC and her chief of staff. Her CoS is eating a hamburger. The CoS in that image is Saikat Chakrabarti. I'm not calling this hypocrisy because I have no evidence that Chakrabarti opposes eating meat (AOC's response to the charge of hypocrisy was to denounce the picture taker as 'creepy')

However, Chakrabarti is involved in another AOC issue. This one involves campaign finance.  During her campaign, AOC was very much in favor of transparency in campaign finance. However, it seems there were some PACs (controlled by Chakrabarti) buying 'services' from LLCs where the PACs and LLCs had board members in common and other suspicious linkages.  It is all very complicated and without having all the information on the finance and knowing campaign finance law, it is impossible to know if there was any wrong doing. However, I think the case of hypocrisy is pretty solid.  The AOC defense that 'this is all legal and there may some bookkeeping errors' is a decent indicator that she realizes she hasn't been transparent, but does not want to admit it.






Image of AOC and hamburger eating by Caleb Hull at this tweet.
Article on the campaign finance issue (sent me by Irwin) is here.

The College Bribery Case

A number of people have called out 'Hypocrisy' in regards to the news of a college entrance bribery and manipulation scandal.

One such report was at 
 foxbusiness which headlined the article,

College admissions scandal exposes Hollywood hypocrisy

The interesting thing to me is who has become the face of the 'hypocrisy'.  The news consistently pictures two actresses, Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin. Perhaps this is because these people are known from their roles on Desperate Housewives and Full House respectively.  Or perhaps because they are photogenic. However neither of them are, near as I can tell, specifically advocates of college admission fairness and thus I can't really call them hypocrites.

A closer-to-hypocrisy case could be made for two other individuals involved in the case. These are Bill McGlashan and Manual Henriquez who are prominent bosses of financial organizations. McGlashan is known for advocating 'ethical' investing. Henriquez is known for advocating 'socially responsible' investing. However neither, as far as I can tell, ever really addressed the issue of college admission. Thus I can't give them hypocrisy credit either.

Of course, I consider their actions to be disgusting and certainly they deserve reprimands and possible criminal prosecution.

 

 

All four paid to get their kids admitted to various prestigious universities. 

Images: Bill McGlashan CEO of  the Rise Fund (without glasses), Manuel Henriquez CEO of Hercules Capital (with glasses), Felicity Huffman (of Desperate Housewives who has 3 gold necklaces in the image) and Lori Loughlin (of Full House). Pictures of the CEOs from a different article in foxbusiness

New Green Hypocrisy

 A twitter exchange occurred involving US Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC) and Dr. Patrick Moore. Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace but, as I understand it, left the organization when it began opposing chlorinating water and made other decisions of that type.
.

AOC famously is an advocate of the Green New Deal and an audit of her campaign expenses showed she used automobiles far more than the subway, planes more than trains and so forth. AOC tweeted that 'she has to live in the world as it is'.

Moore said that the world as it is has subways and trains and doesn't require air conditioning and that AOC is a hypocrite.

Actually, I don't think AOC stated her case well. She should have said that since there were time constraints on her she had to take the fastest mode of transportation at the time but would be transitioning to a less energy intensive life style. Of course she would then have to carry out that transition and if she didn't, would then be an obvious hypocrite.


The AOC tweet is here.
Moore's tweet is here.

Trumps Emergency Proclamation and EOs

 A few days ago President Trump signed an emergency proclamation regarding border security (first image is from PBS and it also contains the text of the proclamation).

During his campaign, then candidate Trump criticized then President Obama for excess use of executive orders (second image is from a tweet by NBC news).

Is this (the EP after criticizing EOs) hypocrisy as opposed to doing EOs after criticizing EOs. 

No.
 Obama had similar changes of heart about how to work the government. I addressed this a few years ago here regarding signing statements. Basically I think Obama didn't understand the issue; I think Trump didn't understand the issue either.

I worked to implement several EOs and several EPs* during my 30+ years in the federal government; sometimes this seemed to me to be 'good' and sometimes 'bad'.

Executive Orders (EO) and Emergency Proclamations (EP) are different.  An EO is supposed to be used to direct the Executive Branch on the priorities and methods of executing statute. Sometimes they even do this, sometimes they are mostly empty feel good puff pieces and sometimes they actually contradict statute and are illegal.

Unlike the EO, the EP may suspend statute. An EP is authorized by 50 USC 34. Current statute has evolved over time since a major change was made in 1976. The most recent major amendment was made in 2009 (when the Democratic party controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency). Here are two things to remember about an EP,
1. Congress can, by joint resolution, cancel an EP.
2. The statute does not define 'emergency'.

While on this general subject, I think the danger of federal government excess is great. However, it is not just EOs and EPs that are a problem. In the Obama administration, changes to the execution of Obamacare were announced once in a blogpost by HHS and another time via a 'dear colleague letter' written to Governors regarding school discipline policy (both without any notice and comment period). I don't know if something similar has been done in the Trump Administration but it wouldn't surprise me if it has.

* about a month ago was the 25th anniversary of the disaster proclamations subsequent to the Northridge earthquake (both California and the US Govt issued disaster proclamations). The highway damage was severe but the proclamations allowed work to begin without going through various planning, environmental, contracting and administrative procedures (my part in this was documenting various steps and recommending data to collect). The repairs were finished on time and under budget and have held up relatively well as I understand it.

Senator Warren and a Hypocrisy Not About Native Americans

To the left (pun intended) is an image of Senator Elizabeth Warren from her event announcing her candidacy for President (from Rolling Stone).

 

Although she is famous for other things, this is about her statement and actions on dark money.

In April 2018 Warren made an impassioned speech praising teachers and criticising corporate money in politics and warning of a new threat 'dark money'.  This dark money are contributions to organizations that do some minimal non partisan work (and don't declare their donors) but then also do some partisan work (complicated rules - I don't pretend to understand them).

Well, it turns out that also in 2018, the organization "Elizabeth  for MA, Inc." sent a $10k check to Fair Fight, a dark money fund (a non profit non partisan and a PAC both named Fair Fight had USPS post boxes at an identical UPS store in Atlanta) whose executive director was Stacy Abrams, a candidate for Governor of Georgia.

Of course, Warren could say, "I'm against it but since they exist I have to use them" as a defense. However, as of this date she hasn't taken that defense.

As a bonus, the group that Warren was praising, teachers, are a major lobbying force and, though various other means, e.g., PTA, teachers probably are one of the most powerful political groups in the country at the local level.


Warren's April 2018 speech is here.
Disbursements of Elizabeth for MA are here.

Linda Sarsour Not a Hypocrite but is somethng worse

Linda Sarsour is an activist and one of the 'leaders' of the Women's March. She is a consistent and egregious critic of Israel and supporter of Sharia (image is from an AP news report).

below is a screen shot of one of her tweets from Jan 2017

below that is a screen shot of a tweet from a few days ago (images, including the screen shots of the tweets may be enlarged  by clicking on them).

The accusation of hypocrisy is based on her 2017 tweet calling President Trump an anti-semite for not mentioning the Jewish victims on Holocaust Remembrance Day and her subsequent 2019 commenting on the Holocaust without mentioning the Jewish victims. 

But this is not hypocrisy as she hasn't said people should do something and then not done it. It is however antisemitism by her own definition.

Also, her many other statements demonizing Israel, promoting BDS, etc. also qualify her as an anti Semite under other definitions of the term.

Alderman Edward Burke may be a Hypocrite but that's just the frosting

ay, January 07, 2019

Alderman Edward Burke is, in some sense the quintessential Chicago politician. His father was an alderman in the same part of SW Chicago. He has been an Alderman (14th ward between Midway Airport and I-55) for almost 50 years. His wife is an Illinois Supreme Court Justice.

He has recently been charged with a long list of extortion related crimes (see stories linked below). 



He is also a vigorous advocate of gun control and spokesman for a gun buy back program. During the FBI's search of his office they found 23 guns, none apparently registered or declared as local Chicago law requires. He was not charged with any crime related to possession of firearms since, as an elected official, Chicago law makes him an officer of the law and, apparently, allowed to possess lots and lots of guns without the protocols that ordinary citizens of Chicago have to obey.  This is arguably hypocrisy but comparatively very small potatoes compared to the extortion.

local cbs news article on Ed Burke is here

local Chicago Tribune article on Ed  Burke is here

.

Was Shammai a Hypocrite

 Last sabbath our synagogue had a visiting scholar. It was Rabbi Joseph Telushkin.

One of his talks mentioned Shammai, the Jewish sage who lived from about 60 BCE to about 30 CE.

As, Rabbi Telushkin notes, Shammai is today remembered as something of a grouch. The first two images are near Shammai's grave in Meron (they are both from the site http://www.zissil.com/topics/Shammai-the-Elder. 


The third is a painting of Shammai and Hillel (Hillel was born decades before Shammai and so the painting is a bit unrealistic).

This comes from a famous story from the Babylonian Talmud in tractate Shabbat, folio page 31a. In this story,

"... it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.<sup>.."

However chapter one of the Pirkei Avot, a.k.a., "Sayings of the Fathers",  contains the following, " ...</sup> Shammai said...  receive every man with a pleasant expression of countenance."

The advice of pleasant expression and his actions with the heathen seem in conflict but we do not know when these two events took place, it may have been many years apart. Or, it could be that in Avot, Shammai is regretting what he did with the heathen. Alternatively, Shammai may have even received the heathen with a pleasant expression but then got angry.

Anyway, the situation is complicated by the fact that Shammai is quoted many times in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud.  In most cases, Shammai rules that both positive and negative commandments are to be followed strictly, e.g., he ruled that young children should fast on Yom Kippur on page 77a of the tractate yoma  "They said about Shammai the Elder [HaZaken] that he did not want to feed his children with one hand, to avoid having to wash it. This prevented the children from eating during all of Yom Kippur. Due to concerns about the health and the suffering of his children, they decreed that he must feed them with two hands, forcing him to wash both hands. " ( in this translation, the bold words are those actually in the text, the unbold words are implied). 

Actually, Shammai was not always stricter than Hillel. There were times when he was more lenient and some of these are covered in the Mishna Eduyot   

Anyway, it got me thinking. 

Emails Hillary vs Ivanka

 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously used a private email account for Government email (the first image is from Hillary's discussion of her private email account in March 2015).

Ivanka Trump, daughter of current President Trump and advisor to the President (seen in the second image) also used a private email account for Government email.

Donald Trump, both as a candidate for President and as President criticized Hillary and defended Ivanka.

Is this hypocrisy?

First off, it is legal to use private email for government business and in some situations necessary (I did this myself when the government server was down). However, such use has restrictions, for example, if you send government email using a private account, you are supposed to send a copy to your government email account to comply with the government records regulations. Also, you may not use private email to hide your actions or send government information to unauthorized persons and, most importantly, you may not use private email to send classified information (in fact you may not use regular government email for classified purposes, you must use the classified network).

As far as I can tell, Ivanka is guilty of using private email when there was no need to do so and also for sending government information to non government officials.

Hillary, on the other hand, was guilty of just about everything you could think of, including destruction of her emails and privately constructed server which held government records not elsewhere available and transmitting confidential (even secret) information on a non government email account. So the two situations are not equivalent and criticizing Hillary while, in part defending Ivanka is certainly reasonable, although Ivanka does bear a certain measure of guilt.

Golfing Presidents

 Both President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama played golf during their time as President.

The first image is of Trump in Scotland (I think at Saint Andrews, although the Trump Organization licenses a course with the name Andrews in Ireland) in July 2018 (Getty image) subsequent to a State visit.

The second image is of Obama in 2011 with former Speaker of the House John Boehner. They are playing golf one of the three golf courses on the grounds of Andrews Air Force Base.

Both Trump and Obama were arguably mixing recreation with Presidential business.

The only difference here is that during his campaign for President, Trump criticized Obama's devotion to golf as a example of not working. CNN put together a number of clips of this and it is available here.

Whether this is hypocrisy or Trump changing his mind or just performance art is difficult to determine. I'm inclined to think Trump just doesn't care about being consistent and although it is hypocrisy, it is a casual, not strategic kind of hypocrisy.

In any event, one thing Obama and Trump have in common, in my opinion, is a reluctance to develop their own legislative language. Obama, for example, famously relied on Congress (primarily through then Senator Baucus) , on the legislation that came to be known as Obamacare. Trump, relied a collection of House Republicans for his signature Tax restructuring bill.  Surely golf must be more fun than reading through proposed statutes.

Warren's About Face on Sessions

In mid 2017, US Senator Elizabeth Warren was one of the leaders of a call for Attorney General William Sessions to resign.

Now, less than 18 months later she is calling the resignation of Sessions a constitutional crisis.

It could be that Warren changed her overall opinion but allows to the opinion that Sessions has 'protected' the work of special prosecutor Mueller. 


However, I can't find any evidence prior to November 2018, of, say, a Warren statement praising Sessions or a Warren statement saying she was wrong in calling for Sessions to resign.


If these don't exist, then it would be hypocrisy.




Article and photo from the Boston Herald here.

Another hypocrisy column: this time in USA Today

Glen Reynolds, a professor of law at Tennessee and a relatively well known blogger (he is on the right in the first image which also has his two brothers), writes a weekly column for USA Today. Yesterday, the title of the column was,

Sen. John McCain's funeral put Washington's vicious political hypocrisy fully on display.

The column makes the point that, in 2000, a number of Republicans said nasty things about McCain and in 2008, a lot of Democrats said nasty things about McCain (the image shows Madonna at a concert where she compared McCain to Hitler and Robert Mugabe) but at McCain's funeral, former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama praised McCain.

The point is a good one but I have a problem with calling it hypocrisy. This is because, neither Bush nor Obama were the people who said nasty things about McCain in 2000 and 2008.   Also, the people who did say nasty things  back are not quoted with respect to McCain in 2018. 

I've made approximately the same distinction in other posts but since this column was in USA Today, I thought I'd redo the distinction once again.

 

 

The column is available here.

Madonna's image is from an article on that 2008 concert.

The photo of the Reynolds brothers is from a post on the Instapundit blog.

 

.

Marco Rubio on Trump/Kim vs Obama/Castro

The image to the left is from a south Florida WLRM publication which accuses Senator Marco Rubio of Hypocrisy. The accusation is that Rubio criticized former President Obama for the same thing current President Trump did, namely meeting a dictator. The double standard is a type of hypocrisy but not as strong as if, say, Obama would have denounced the Trump/Kim meeting (he has not done so as of the day of this post).

The article has a short quote from Rubio on the Obama/Castro meeting and from Rubio on the Trump/Kim meeting.

 However, the article brings up an additional point which is important, namely, what did the US get out of the meeting.  There is good reason to differentiate between summits that achieve good results and those that don't.

So what did the US get out of the Obama meeting with Raul Castro?  There was a release of some political prisoners (some of whom were rearrested soon after Obama left Cuba).  What did the US give up? There were some economic and travel restrictions that were reduced or eliminated. The US placed diplomatic personnel in Cuba but then removed the personnel. Many of the diplomatic personnel had contracted illness in Cuba. The US concessions to Cuba were canceled by Trump in mid 2017.

What did the US get out of the Trump meeting with Kim Jung Un?  Several political prisoners were released before the meeting. More importantly, North Korea abandoned the testing of bombs and missiles and declared it policy to denuclearize the Korean peninsula before the Trump/Kim meeting. Some of the North Korea WMD sites are in the process of being destroyed by the North Koreans as of the date of this post.  Of course, the eventual results of this overall process are as yet unknown.

There is another important difference between the two meetings. In the case of the Trump/Kim meeting, South Korea had played an independent and also intermediary role and had it's own summit between North and South Korean leaders before the US meeting. In addition Kim visited China before the North/South Korea event. No U.S. friendly nation played such a role in the Trump/Castro meeting although both Canada and the Vatican contacts were used for logistical arrangements.


The WLRM article is here.

Article of CubaUS thaw is here.

News of re-arrest of Cuban prisoners released is here.

News of illness of US diplomatic personnel in Cuba is here.

Article on US/North Korea summit is here.

Irwin sent me a link to a video of people criticizing Obama and/or praising Trump for summitry with dictators.  That had a lot of very short statements and so was difficult to analyze.

Supreme Court Decision Seems to Turn on Colorado Commission Hypocrisy

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Jack Phillips in a case between him and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

There is a lot in the decision that is technical and distinguishes the Phillips case from other cases and places it in the perspective of other civil rights rulings and discusses other administrative issues. These issues are complex and I don't pretend to understand them.

However, one aspect of this case involves the issue of a double standard (closely related to hypocrisy) and it seems to be an important element. Apparently, in several cases, the Colorado Commission approved of bakers refusing to decorate cakes* with anti gay marriage themes but in Phillips case did not approve Phillips refusal to decorate a cake with a gay marriage theme.

The commission apparently disparaged Phillips and his beliefs in clear and unambiguous language in the administrative record. That demonstrated the disparate treatment was likely intentional not accidental (and it is also stunning that a public body would act that way).

* the case is not about 'refusing to bake a cake' as it is described in many media reports, it is about refusing to decorate a cake but this is not a hypocrisy issue


The image is of Jack Phillips of the Mastercake Cakeshop from a Slate article.

Slate article here.

The Supreme Court decision is here. The discussion of the Commission's disparate treatment of the pro and anti gay marriage bakers is on page 2 of a 59 page ruling.

Blaming Her Own Constituents for Her Previous Opinions

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of NY was once a US representative. Her district included Albany and  Schenectady.

Back when she represented that district she opposed gun control legislation and advocated stronger measures to restrict illegal immigration.

Now, her opinions have shifted 180 degrees.

She blames her previous opinions on her district constituents for making her ignorant. She says that only after becoming a Senator and talking to people in Brooklyn, did she realize her errors. 

There are some problems here since: she lived in NYCity for 10 years before she moved to Albany; they actually have newspapers and TV in Albany; she could have spoken to other US representatives. Also, she only represented the district in Albany for 2 years (2007 to 2009).  In that district, notwithstanding Gillibrand's characterization of it (being ashamed of her constituents), Obama received 58% and 59% in 2008 and 2012 and Clinton 54% in 2016. Also, she says her district was 98% white and it is actually closer to 80%.

So probably she was saying something she didn't believe in when she was a representative or is doing so now.  That's hypocrisy but not particularly damaging or serious since many, probably most, people naturally assume U S Senators (particularly the ones that change their positions 180 degrees) are prone to that. 

Irwin suggested that like the late Senator Robert Byrd and the late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (both of whom were KKK members and later renounced their membership), Gillibrand simply changed her mind on the issue.

Looking first at Senator Byrd; in the late 1950s, as he was running for the US Senate, he claimed to have left the KKK in 1942, however, as late as  late as 1946 he wrote a letter, essentially praising the Klan. Because of that letter, I would have classified him as a hypocrite in the late 1950s (he was born in 1917).  By the end of his career (2010), he had probably actually changed his mind.

Looking at Justice Black, in the 1920s Black joined the Klan but discontinued his membership in 1925. Nonetheless, in 1926 as he was running for Senator in Alabama he went to numerous Klan sponsored events and did not renounce the Klan at any of them. He later told a biographer that he joined the Klan so that it would not be dominated by irresponsible people and also said that he joined all groups that would get him votes but also said that joining the Klan was a mistake.  This make him something of an opportunist and also, someone who really never truly renounced the Klan. Thus I can't really call him a hypocrite (although never really renouncing the Klan is worse).

Comparing these two to Gillibrand is interesting. Byrd's journey away from the Klan has the problem of accounting for the 1946 pro-Klan letter. Black's journey away from the Klan seems to be opportunistic by Black's own testimony. Gillibrand's journey away from his position on gun control and immigration are clouded by the impossibility of believing her excuses. A truly sorry lot.










image and story about Senator Gillibrand is here.
presidential votes from wikipedia here
demographic from ballotpedia here

Senator Byrd and Justice Black's information come from here, here, and here. 

Exxon May Counter Sue California Cities for Hypocrisy

 Exxon filed a motion in Tarrant County, TX (which includes Ft Worth, TX) District Court last week. 

The motion seeks to obtain depositions from 12+ individuals. Exxon's contention is that these individuals have possibly conspired to abuse the law in suing Exxon for covering up climate research. 

Actually, I couldn't find the word 'hypocrisy' in the Exxon motion, but the motion definitely raises this issue. This is because:

 1. seven California cities including San Mateo county are suing Exxon for conspiracy to cover up climate research which would show a drastic increase in sea level based on a 2012 meeting in La Jolla, California and,

 2. some of these counties have, post 2012, sold bonds to investors (a big one was for San Mateo County, hence the map) declaring that they either do not expect sea level rises or do not know if there are any impacts from climate change that would raise sea levels.

I don't really understand much about the relationship between cities within a county and the county bonding authority or about the legal issues involved with selling bonds or about the issue of suing for climate research suppression.  Thus, I'm not going to take a position on the hypocrisy of the people being sued. However, it is the first example I've come across where hypocrisy could be a legal issue.

Exxon's filing is here.

Is President Trump a golf hypocrite

CNN had a story that makes the case that President Donald Trump has been playing lots of golf contradicting his campaign promises to work hard as president. The story is entitled, "Donald Trump's Huge Golf Hypocrisy". Irwin sent me a link to the CNN story.



The story actually does more than that. It chronicles many statements by candidate Trump that either promise to not play golf when elected or criticize former President Barack Obama for playing golf or criticize Obama for not making deals when playing golf.  

A defense of Trump is proffered by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. The defense is, as I understand it, that golf, when played while discussing business is not really playing golf.  In that regard, the first image is Trump playing golf with pro golfer Rory McIlroy in February 2017. The second image is Trump playing golf with Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe in the summer of 2017. Per the Sanders theory, the first game is golf the second is business.

I tried to find this theory in the 1987 book "Art of the Deal" but was unable to find it. However, even if I had, it is clear that there are plenty of times, that Trump has played golf without doing ' business'.

However, I did find an interesting article by the ghost writer of the 1987 book (who gets credit on the cover and inside so its not so 'ghosty'). He explains Trump's counterfactual statements like this, " ...facts are whatever Trump deems them to be on any given day. When he is challenged, he instinctively doubles down — even when what he has just said is demonstrably false. I saw that countless times, whether it was as trivial as exaggerating the number of floors at Trump Tower or as consequential as telling me that his casinos were performing well when they were actually going bankrupt....".

So, perhaps, "hypocrisy" isn't the best way to describe Trump's golf statements. Magical thinking might be a better way to do it.




First image from Politifact.

Second image from the Daily Mail.

CNN story is here. 

A .pdf of "Art of the Deal" is here. 

The article by Trump's ghostwriter is here.

Senator Manchin sees "Hypocrisy at the highest level"

Senator Manchin (D-W.VA) denounced the coerced and presumably upcoming resignation of Al Franken (D-MN) today and used the word, 'Hypocrisy'.

The image shows the two Senators, with Manchin on the left. Manchin commented on Senators who called for Franken to resign and then watched Senator Franken's resignation statement (in which Franken said he would resign at a future time).

The statement using 'hypocrisy' was,

"...The most hypocritical thing I’ve ever seen done to a human being — and then have enough guts to sit on the floor, watch him give his speech and go over and hug him? That’s hypocrisy at the highest level I’ve ever seen in my life. Made me sick,”

I don't understand Manchin's use of the phrase, 'most hypocritical thing'. Calling for someone to resign and then watching him make a speech seems devoid of any hypocrisy.

Watching Franken give his speech in which he never apologized nor named victims and go over and hug him seems strange. If the hug were sensual and non consensual and if such a hug were given by a person who called for him to resign that would be hypocritical.  I don't have any way to judge that, I doubt Manchin does either.







Information and image from a Politico article here.

Climate Scientist calls other climate scientists hypocrites

An Op-ed in the Guardian presented the argument that climate scientists shouldn't fly. This was done, I think, to show, among other things, why the author did not attend a conference held by the American Geophysics Union.

It was authored by Peter Kalmus (that's him in the image) who is a scientist with NASA involved in the physics of clouds. For some years, Dr. Kalmus has been writing articles about how he himself stopped using airplanes and how he bicycles around, etc.

He implies that other scientist are hypocrites (he does not use the word 'hypocrisy') for flying to conferences on climate (thus making climate scientists among the most prolific carbon emitters on the planet- if you accept his assumptions). He does so in the way of 'confession and redemption' which makes this interesting. Here is a sample of the confession,

"... In 2010, I sat down and estimated my climate emissions. It turns out that, hour for hour, there’s no better way to warm the planet than to fly. I’d flown 50,000 miles during the year, mostly to scientific meetings. Those flights accounted for 3/4 of my annual emissions..."

and here is the redemption,

"...Eventually, there came a day when I was on the runway about to take off and felt an overwhelming desire not to be on the plane. I saw too clearly the harm it was doing to the world’s children, to all the beings on our planet. I haven’t flown since 2012, nor have I wanted to.."

Of course, not all scientists at all conferences are there to discuss climate science. In fact the event he mentioned in his op-ed, the American Geophysics Union conference, had many sessions that were not about climate science. Also, while Kalmus is happy in his presumably secure job, many people are not and find going to conferences a way to network to other jobs. So, to some extent, Kalmus is just grandstanding and preaching. Also, I wonder if Kalmus ever co-authors articles and lets his co-authors go to conferences and present. Finally not all people at the APU have the same fear of carbon dioxide based global warming as Kalmus. 

The op ed by Kalmus is here.

A 2014 article by Kalmus about his low carbon life is here. The third image is from that site and show his wife and kids.