The Gore paradigm is generalized

The LATimes has an article that, in effect, generalizes the Gore situation to many other green leaning politicos. It is at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jets28feb28,0,2448915.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The article points out the fact that such elected officials as Sen Dianne Feinstein and Gov Arnold Schwartzenegger fly on private jets ocassionally. Staff of these officials point out that sometimes a commercial carrier isn't available to get them where they have to go when they have to be there. Certainly, this is more reasonable than the Gore Mansion case where there is no business reason why Gore has to have a 10,000 ft house, no business reason why it has to have a heated pool, no business reason why he has to have 3 other residences.

I'll give the elected officials a pass. However, it behooves them to consider that the citizens they represent also have to be places and certain times (like at work) whenever they make speeches about global warming.

Even More on the Al Gore Mansion

1. it seems Al Gore has 3 other dwellings he owns and only spends about 6 months of the year in Nashville

2. the use of carbon credits is apparently mentioned in his .ppt presentations, however most of the presentations are about reducing consumption; also apparently carbon credits were part of the goodie bag handed out at the Oscars ---

Given the mention of carbon credits in the .ppt presentation, Al Gore may be more properly considered a morally vain weasel rather than a hypocrite. Would that be better?

Also, here is a post from someone who lives near Al and consumes less per sq ft. It also has an impressive chain of comments.

http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/2007/02/27/debunking-a-rather-lame-debunking/

One additional point is worth mentioning. Al Gore buys carbon credits from a company which is has the following web site:

http://www.generationim.com/

It turns out that Al Gore founded this company and is the chairman of the company. The company apparently invests in ecofriendly technology although the company's website is unspecific about what they actually do, who owns how much stock and how much capital the company manages. In effect, Al Gore may well be buying carbon credits by investing the money in his own company.

Al Gore - More Information

Apparently Mr. Gore purchases carbon credits. This is according to a post at Thinkprogress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

The site doesn't provide the cost of the carbon credits. However, carbon credits were going for about $4/ton the past few months. Assuming 1 megawatt hour per ton of carbon (which is a very high estimate and assumes essentially all the electricity is from coal), the credits would cost Mr. Gore less than about $800/year. Of the course the reason the cost is low is that almost nobody buys such credits, thus reducing the demand and the market clearing price.

The post at Thinkprogress also says that Gore's mansion uses a number of energy conservation devices but this begs the point of why the consumption is so high and why it has gone up in the past few years (the thinkprogress site states that the increased consumption is being done to reduce future consumption but the only detail provided is that solar panels are being installed and this improvement does not require much electricity to accomplish beyond the small amount needed to run the carpentry equipment).

Al Gore's Uses about 20x the average household's energy use
Is that Hypocrisy?

A public interest group in Tennessee seems to have gotten hold of the electricity and natural gas bills for the Gore mansion in Nashville, TN. As might be expected, former VP Gore's mansion uses much more than the average house. The group also says that the mansion has increased its consumption since the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" came out. The group also specifically accuses VP Gore of hypocrisy.

The article is at:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

I do not know this for certain but I'm assuming that Mr. Gore has on numerous occasions stated that everyone should reduce their energy consumption.

This certainly looks like a case of VP Gore saying one thing and doing another. However there may be some possible outs for Mr. Gore.

1. It may be that almost all the electricity is used for security related business since after all he is a public figure who requires a certain amount of protection against possible assassins.
2. It may be that his electricity use is much less than other mansions of its size (it apparently has 20 rooms, including 8 bathrooms).
3. It may be that this mansion should be compared to research centers of similar size if a lot of research is being done there.
4. It may be that the KW hour purchased are being used to manufacture something at the mansion, in which case the residential comparison doesn't work.

If none of these or similar findings are true, the Mr. Gore will rightfully considered a hypocrite, although I don't see how it can be a very dangerous hypocrisy (tentatively call it a level 2).

Alan Wolfe vs Dinesh D'Souza; who are the hypocrites

Dinesh D'Souza, an author, researcher with the Hoover Institute of Stanford Univ and contributor to generally right wing magazines and websites, wrote a book recently the gist of which was that the uncouth nature of American culture contributed substantially to the 9-11 motivation and that also the political left's embrace of Hollywood contributed to the culture.

Alan Wolfe, an author, a professor at Boston College and a contributor to left wing magazines, criticised the D'Souza book and pronounced any Republican or conservative who fails to disassociate themselves from D'Souza a hypocrite (and other bad things).

Peter Berkowitz, an author, professor at George Mason University and also associated with the Hoover Institute reviewed the situation in an article at a conservative webzine:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/306biljm.asp?pg=2


In Berkowitz's review he points up the fact that Wolfe had, in 2004, written an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled "A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics." In this essay Wolfe contended that the works of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmidtt are in some way helpful in understanding conservative writers Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Berkowitz charges Wolfe with hypocrisy in that, as near as I can tell Wolfe is, in the essay, demonizing people he disagrees with while in the review of D'Souza's book, criticizing D'Souza for demonizing people he disagrees with.

Although this sounds interesting I'm going to take a pass since an analysis would require reading substantial sections of both the DSouza book (which sounds to me like a conclusion based on a very selective reading of some cherry picked facts) and Wolfe's essay which sounds to me like egregious nonsense.

Hypocrisy in Hebrew is Tzvioot (transliteration)

This according to our friend Julian Silk.

John Edwards and the Hypocrisy House

I must admit my flesh crawls sometimes when hearing former Senator Edwards speak. Thus it will be a challenge to address yet another potential Edwards hypocrisy event. An artilce on townhall proclaims, "Hypocrisy, thy name is John Edwards."

The case made in the article is that former Senator Edwards, by running a campaign based on an anti-Walmart, anti-exploiter capitalist, "There are Two Americas (one rich, one exploited)" is being a hypocrite by building a mega house (some 28k sq ft on 102 acres and the highest value house in Orange County NC). This house will consume huge amounts of energy to heat and light.

Much as I might like I can't see the hypocrisy. Edwards never said, "the rich shouldn't build nice (or big) houses", never said, "the rich shouldn't show off their wealth" or anything similar.

Now, I could see calling the building of this house in bad taste or tacky or even ironic-- but hypocrisy - nope, not this time.

The article is at:

http://wherearemykeys.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=c8c685cc-55fc-4ef5-a8d4-292a95907a89

A picture of the house and more architectural details at:

http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848

Tom Tancredo (R-CO): Race based Congressional Caucus is hypocrisy

article from a Jan 25 post from the AP:

White House hopeful Tom Tancredo said Thursday the existence of the Congressional Black Caucus and other race-based groups of lawmakers amount to segregation and should be abolished.

and here is the quote:

"It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a colorblind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race," said the Colorado Republican,

Well the problem here is that Representative Tancredo gives no examples of Congress extolling the virtues of a colorblind society (and frankly I doubt there are very many examples). In addition I'm not sure there is a difference between regular hypocrisy and utter hypocrisy. I presume this is just a rhetorical device. Finally, I am pretty sure the race based caucuses do essentially nothing at all.

Case dismissed.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/25/D8MSH6A00.html

Pelosi Samoa Story evolves some more

The Senate now has a minimum wage bill also. Samoa is exempt.

The Pelosi-Samoa story evolves

Subsequent to the passage of the house minimum wage bill, Speaker Pelosi has, as I understand it, placed a note in the House records advising any conferees appointed to a Senate-House conference to agree to give up the Samoan exception to the minimum wage bill. However, it is unclear what this actually means because subsequent to the 'note in the House records' event, Pelosi and Representative Miller (of CA) announced that, in deference to the Representative from American Samoa they would jointly oppose requiring American Samoa to be covered since 'it would be devestating to the Samoan economy'. Of course, the Senate hasn't taken up the bill yet so this is a long way from over. And here is the statement of the Representative of American Samoa (non voting, Dem) on the issue:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/as00_faleomavaega/minimumwage2007.html

Nancy Pelosi, Samoa and the Marianas Islands

The new speaker of the House of Representatives is Nancy Pelosi. She had promised, that, if she became speaker, the House would pass legislation raising the minimum wage.

Apparently, this came to pass earlier this week.. There is, however, a little glitch. Apparently the existing minimum wage (which now is $5.15) did not apply to US administered territories, including the Marianas Islands and American Samoa. The legislation passed does apply to the Marianas Islands but not to American Samoa. Businesses in the Marianas Islands are thought to give money to Republican fundraising efforts. American Samoa has a large tuna canning industry. One tuna related company operating in American Samoa is StarKist Tuna, a subsidiary of Del Monte Industries, which has a HQ office in SF (Pelosi's district). The other tuna related company operating in American Samoa is Chicken-of-theSea which has a HQ in California outside Pelosi's district.

Pelosi's office denied that Pelosi had been lobbied by either company to have the minimum wage not apply to American Samoa.

I'll grant you this is sneaky, probably suspicious, maybe even sleazy, but what is the hypocrisy? Did Nancy Pelosi ever say, "The minimum wage should apply everwhere the American Flag flies" or words to that effect. Apparently, the only statements she made were of the "We believe the minimum wage should be raised." variety. Thus, I'm going to give Pelosi a pass unless I get access to more definitive statements.

A headline writer who is more free with the charge of hypocrisy wrote at this site:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm

Democracy Advocates for Hypocrisy

At least that is the accusation of Haaretz writer Schmuel Rosner writing for Slate.

His thesis is, basically that those who advocated democracy as a cure for violence, oppression and corruption in the Arab mideast now advocate, in effect less democracy because they support PA President (and relative moderate) Abbas in his struggle with the parlimentary majority Hamas.

Rosner's article is at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2155722/

Here is some of the article,

"... British Prime Minister Tony Blair, visiting the West Bank on Monday, declared, "If the international community really means what it says about supporting people who share the vision of a two-state solution, who are moderate, who are prepared to shoulder their responsibilities, then now is the time for the international community to respond."

I'm not sure if Blair thought seriously about this sentence before uttering it—but, in some ways, it captures the essence of the West's real policy—America's too—in the Middle East. Not the rhetoric, the reality: no democracy, no "elected government," no "right of the people to decide" (which they did, in last January's elections). It's the people who are "moderate" and who "support a two-state solution" that deserve the support of Blair and President Bush. And if those moderates lost an election—well, never mind. You can always call for another one, and another one—until the people get the message and elect the desired government."

Well one obvious problem is that if Abbas is calling for new elections, how can supporting Abbas in this case be called hypocrisy?

Rosner has a point that the countries that don't like Hamas don't seem to acknowledge that Hamas won an election. However, this isn't hypocrisy. Its more like refusing to face the truth honestly. Notice the quote from PM Blair doesn't actually use the word 'democracy'. Also, Blair never said that "if Hamas wins we will recognize them..." (if he had Rosner would have found the words). This then becomes more of one of the many annoying things about diplomacy rather than hypocrisy.

Supporting Labor Unions

A prominent left wing US website has in essense accused the right wing US of hypocrisy in that the right wing US supports labor unions in foreign countries (specifically a bus driver union in Iran) but opposes labor unions the USA.

The article notes the long history of this activity, for example back in the late 1980s the US supported the Polish Longshoremen Union (Lech Walensa) but in the early 1980s then President Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike.

The accusation is more fully stated at:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/14/the_right_stands_up_for_labor.php

This accusation is another case of insufficient specificity.

Let's take the 1980s. The US supporter the right of Polish Longshormen to form a union and to collectively bargain and, if they didn't reach an agreement, to strike.

On the other hand, President Reagan did not oppose the right of the Air Traffic Controllers to form a union. He did not oppose the right of the ATCs to collectively bargain. However, given that the law prohibited strikes, he opposed their right to strike.

I'm not sure what the Polish law was about striking but during the cold war most Warsaw block countries had very progressive 'on the books' laws that were actually ignored by the government which used emergency decrees.

In the current case the right wing US does not oppose the right to organize or the right to collectively bargain or even the right to strike (except where it is against the law - e.g., firemen). The fact that the right generally opposes closed shops, high minimum wages and the like is simply not the same as the basic rights.

Thus the charge of hypocrisy, without better parallel between societies, is rejected.

John Edwards Again, Walmart Again

Yes former Senator Edwards did appear at that book signing.

He defended the choice of Barnes and Noble over Walmart by citing total compensation (although he didn't use that term) because Barnes and Noble has a better health care plan (or so he says).

He also said that he is not anti Costco the same way he is anti Walmart because Costco employees have higher wages (he didn't refer to any Costco health care plan).

The followup article in the local paper in NH is:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?
headline=John+Edwards+in+NH+promoting+
book+on+homes&articleId=16df404b
-3e60-4537-89ab-80c4d9f0b011

John Edwards Again; Walmart Again

Tonight, former Senator Edwards is to sign his book in Manchester, NH. He is to do so at a Barnes and Noble. The Barnes and Noble is very near a Walmart. One purpose of the Barnes and Noble signing is to highlight Edwards's disapproval of Walmart. It turns out that, in Manchester, NH at least, the starting salary at Walmart is $7.50 (which is the rate Edwards thinks would be OK as a minimum wage), the starting salary at Barnes and Noble is $7.00.

I don't know the non salary compensation at the two employers (this is fairly difficult to find out and subject to calculational assumptions).

Notwithstanding this, what the information shows is not that Edwards is hypocritical ((he probably assumed that the Manchester, NH Walmart would have low starting wages) but that he is ignorant for local information. Data from the Manchester union leader (newspaper).

Background available at:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2006/11/edwardss_crusade.html

John Edwards, Walmart and the PlayStation3

Several articles have accused former Senator (of NC, a possible future candidate for President) John Edwards as a hypocrite. The story is that Edwards has been on the speakers circuit criticizing Walmart. However, this year, his son wanted a PlayStation3, and it was purchased at Walmart by a Edwards campaign aid.

A longer version of this is at:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116797.html
or
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061116/dath035.html?.v=68
or
http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4611.aspx
or
http://kevinb66.newsvine.com/_news/2006/11/17/445591
-former-senator-john-edwards-turns-to-wal-mart-for-playstation3


In the detailed version it is clear that Edwards did not tell the campaign aid to get the product at Walmart nor to specifically not get the product at Walmart. The aid simply was trying to please his boss. Edwards has also told the story that his son has criticized a classmate for shopping at Walmart. The fact is that the campaign aid is not the same person as Edwards (father or son) and so the Walmart purchase doesn't seem to me to be an example of hypocrisy.

However, Edwards criticism of Walmart is based on his contention that Walmart employees are underpaid (or that their medical coverage is undersubsidized).

Interestingly, the campaign aid is a volunteer - that is, he is paid nothing or close to nothing.

Ah. The hypocrisy is not with the product, its with the compensation.

In Edwards defense, virtually all political campaigns use volunteers and the volunteers sometimes obtain business or professional contacts that have a value far greater than what a $7/hr wage would have been. On the other hand, many, maybe most volunteer campaign aids end up with squat.

In Walmart's defense, no one forces people to work at Walmart and with a national unemployment rate below 5% for the past year or so, the total compensation package at Walmart (which also includes business and professional contacts as well as resume experience) must be fairly attractive since the company keeps increasing its work forces every year.

Bottom line - OK Edwards is a hypocrite but a minor one and not because of the PlayStation3.

Slate accuses U2 and Bono of hypocrisy

Slate is one of the most popular webzines. It's article on this subject is at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152580/?nav=tap3

The crux of the argument is that Bono has been a promoter of aid to the third world and now his band (U2) is relocating a part of their business (the most profitable part, the music publishing) from Ireland to the Netherlands to reduce their corporate tax liability.

The basis of the hypocrisy charge is never stated in the article, alas. However, as near as I can tell the charge is that Bono tells nations that they should provide more foreign aid and then reduces the ability of a nation to provide that aid.

Actually, Bono does other things than advocate foreign aid. He advocates reducing trade barriers that adversely affect third world nations. He also advocates debt forgiveness (which is mostly debt that third world nations owe banks). He also advocates requiring drug manufacturers to basically sell their products to third world nations at a loss.

These ideas may be naive, even conterproductive (btw, a lot of people think foreign aid to 3rd world countries has been a net minus to those countries because, for one thing, it allows dictators to buy more police to beat up dissidents) but they don't affect the hypocrisy argument.

Assuming the narrow charge of advocating foreign aid while diminishing the ability of one country (Ireland) to provide foreign aid, the charge of hypocrisy would be at least partly true. However, the country to which he moved his business (the Netherlands) would now be better able to provide the foreign aid. There would presumably a net loss which is why the narrow charge is partly true.

Senator Kerry and the 'botched joke'.

Two days ago, Senator Kerry was campaigning in California (in support of the Democrat candidate for Governor). He was addressing a University related audience. He made the statement,

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

(from a London Times article at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2432208,00.html
a youtube version of the speech is at:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENegT-spXg

His staff released the prepared text which was,

"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

As anti-Bush writer for Slate acknowledges, this 'joke' isn't funny even in its prepared text.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152456/?nav=fix

Kerry was accused of insulting American troops. Kerry at first refused to apologize, then apologized to anyone who 'misinterpreted' the joke.

this was the apology

“As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.“

A number of writers have suggested that Kerry meant to insult the troops basing their claim on Kerry's 1972 statements on a questionaire sent him by an antiwar group in which he opposes an all volunteer army because it would be predominently staffed by low income, black, uneducated, etc. (it hasn't turned out that way) and his statements in 1971 (made in testimony at a Congressional hearing) criticizing troops are being killers, rapers, etc.

Kerry's 1971 statements =

They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Kerry's 1972's statements =

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown,"

"We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities,.."

Kerry later stated (in 2004) that his 1971 statements were just repetition of what he had heard and that he never saw any atrocities being committed (although in 2006 he said he was proud of the statements and that they were true; indeed some atrocities were committed however many atrocities claimed to have been witnessed by the 'winter soldier' convention attendees were claims of people who had not been in combat or even in the armed forces).

He has never said anything about his 1972 statement.

Personally, I think we have a schizoid situation. One part of Senator Kerry surely realizes that the troops in Iraq are pretty well educated (virtually all HS educated and many with undergraduate and graduate degrees). However, another part of Kerry still clings to his 1972 theory; he has never acknowledged being wrong about the all volunteer army. It is still an talking point among antiwar speakers that blacks (or hispanics, or low income whites, etc.) are cannon fodder. So, a part of Kerry meant to insult the troops. However, that was not the part of him that apologized so I don't think its a good case of hypocrisy.

The non hypocrisy points here are actually more interesting.

1. Kerry badly botched a poorly written joke that was suppose to make fun of President Bush's lack of intellect. However, the botch job followed by the refusel to apologize followed by the apology seems to suggest that, at least in this case, it is Kerry who has a lack of intellect.

2. Kerry's behavior in this case is best explained by vanity rather than hypocrisy. He could have simply released the prepared remarks as soon as he was criticized and said, "I meant to say that." However, to do so would have been to admit that he didn't write his own jokes and furthermore couldn't recognize the joke was bad and worse yet, botched the joke his staff had written for him. If, as has been alledged, Kerry is incredibly vain, such admissions would have been very painful for him causing him to try to find other ways around this problem.

3. In the apology, Kerry uses the word 'troop' in a way that makes it hard to know what he means. He also uses the word 'imply' when I think he means 'infer'. He also can't legitimately claim to 'personally apologize'; he means, I think, 'collectively apologize'.

Senator Burns has a couplet.

From the website of Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT), in the second paragraph is this couplet:

"...With a seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Burns has been able to bring in over $2 billion in federal funds to the state since he took office. He has been a champion of a fiscally conservative government and a strong voice for lower taxes to create new businesses and more jobs."

It is nice that the first sentence seems to say, "Hey I'm great at pork barrel projects" and the second says, "Hey I'm fiscally responsible". It is not uncommon to have contradictions in a long narrative, but it is relatively uncommon to have a contradiction in consecutive sentences.

This would be obvious hypocrisy except that Senator Burns perhaps thinks that his pork barrel projects are actually good projects (I'm making the ordinary assuption that these port barrel projects are bad projects since the reason for such projects is that no county, municipality, state or private entity would fund them). This would take a remarkable feat of intentional ignorance or of intentional disregarding of evidence (I don't have a list of those projects: Senator Burns doesn't give them probably with good reason since the names alone would condemn the projects).

In sum, the alternatives are:
1. the MT pork barrel projects are actually good projects.
2. Senator Burns is a hypocrite (probably about a leve 3)
3. Senator Burns is intentionally ignorant about the projects he believes to be good.
4. Senator Burns intentionally is disregarding evidence about the projects.

Senator Burn's website (at least as of today) is at:
http://burns.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.BurnsBackground

More on former Representative Foley

Some people are saying that the Democrats are being hypocrites for criticizing the Republicans for not stopping Foley's page-seeking. Unfortunately for analysis, it is obvious that there is not a unified Democratic response to this. The charge is also made that when former Representative Studds (of Massachusetts) actually had an affair with a 17 year old male page (iin 83), it was covered up for 10 years and he only received a reprimand (rather than censure or being expelled). The point is somewhat valid however the people around in 83-93 are mostly not the same people around now and those who are may have changed their mind about what is, and isn't ethical.

To really get a read on what the Democrats are thinking would require someone in about the same position as Foley doing about the same thing as Foley about the same time.

The nearest thing to a Foley is the case of Representative Jefferson (of Louisiana) who has been charged with various crimes (bribery, extortion, etc.). His freezer was found to contain $90k in recently obtained cash. He still serves in the House but has had to resign from one of the House committees (Foley resigned his seat in the House completely).