Edwards - Again and another Sexual Immorality Case

Former Senator Edwards is reported to have said that the US should fight global warming by people giving up SUV's (I don't have a direct quote - the news reports have a paraphrase). Back on Feb 2, 2007, I examined the case of the 28,000 square foot house recently constructed for John Edwards (it sits on a 100+ acre estate). That was in connection with the fact that the Edwards campaign was based on rallying the poor against their rich exploiters. This is sufficiently similar that I'll not examine it again.

Also, back on Aug 20, I looked again at the case of a family-values politico who was accused of sexual immorality. A similar charge (and guilty plea) has occurred against another family values politico, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). Again, this is sufficiently similar that I'll not examine it in depth. I will say that conservative columnist Ann Coulter (whose work I generally do not read), did make this issue the subject of a column. I found her analysis on this basically sound although it is a bit difficult to get to the analysis because it is surrounded by polemic (which I suppose is what draws readers). She commented, "Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."

The cop's report of the Lewd (or disorderly) conduct charge against Senator Craig is at:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

The report of the SUV comment is at:

http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.nc/22b7034c-www.wlos.com.shtml

and a nice picture of the Edwards estate with several SUVs parked in one of the 4 parking areas on the estate at:

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u128/sapguy_us/EdwardsHome.jpg

The Coulter column is at: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi and is dated Sept 5, 2007 and titled, "Cruising While Republican".

Parsing Hypocrisy on Sexual Immorality

Steve Landsburg, an economic professor, writing at Slate.com (an online journal now owned by the Washington Post but once owned by Microsoft) has an post with the title "Parsing Hypocrisy".

He has started down approximately the same path as this blog with an attempt to clearly define hypocrisy. The twist in his definition is that it is down from an economics viewpoint.

He takes the case of a Florida legislator who was caught doing something illegal and sexually immoral. This same legislator sponsored legislation making it easier to convict people of lewd and lascivious behaviour.

Professor Landsburg, has (as have I) considerable trouble determining whether or not this is hypocrisy because he isn't sure of the motive of the individual.

Landsburg's blog is:

http://www.slate.com/id/2172282/fr/flyout

For what it is worth, I have covered this approximate issue before (in Oct 2006 with respect to former US representative Mark Foley). In that case I made the point that perhaps Foley (who verbally solicited homoerotic activity with pages while coauthoring legislation to expand the criminalization of child pornography) was acting from the knowledge that he himself was enticed by homoeroticism and wanted to help others resist the temptation.

Post Script

On Aug 21, I wrote to Dr. Landsburg telling him I was commenting on his article on this blog and telling him about the Oct 2006 post regarding US Rep Foley.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:11:44 -0400 (EDT)

I received this message.

"Steven E. Landsburg" wrote:

Thanks for sharing your blog post on hypocrisy. You make a good
point, and you make it well.


SL

More From Laurie David (Greenhouse Gas Hypocrisy)

I discussed this a bit on April 23.

At that time, I was not entirely sure whether Laurie David (or Sheryl Crow) believed in carbon offsets as a legitimate way of compensating for egregious consumption of energy intensive products and services, most egregiously of all the private jet travel (obviously the resulting carbon dioxide is substantial).

Apparently, the Guardian did an article on Laurie David (dated in the fall of 2006 but seeming to begin in 2004 - I can't figure out the date of any actual interviews - although the article seems based on an interview or maybe several interviews).

In this Guardian article (which is sympathetic to Ms David), she doesn't mention purchasing offsets. Instead at one point in the interview,

"...She has been dubbed a Gulfstream liberal for flying occasionally in a private jet, and castigated for her second home on Martha's Vineyard. "It's so easy to marginalise people," she says in self-defence. "Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year, and I feel horribly guilty about it. I probably shouldn't do it. But the truth is, I'm not perfect. This is not about perfection. I don't expect anybody else to be perfect either. That's what hurts the environmental movement - holding people to a standard they cannot meet. That just pushes people away.""

So apparently whether or not she buys offsets, she has some feeling that the offset is not adequate compensation for the carbon dioxide emissions of her private jet (or 2nd home or the extra emissions because her first home is so gigantic).

Instead, she defends (I'm not entirely sure she means this as a defense - clearly the author of the Guardian article considers it so) herself by saying people shouldn't expect her to be perfect. That would seem to be reasonable except I don't think people expect that at all. I assume that at least some people simply expect her to reduce her emissions to, say, only about 4 or 5 times the average for Americans instead of the 50-100 times they are now (I don't have an audit, I'm guessing here).

Anyway the Guardian article is at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/18/weekendmagazine.usnews

John Edwards and the money from Murdoch

Roger Simon, a very popular blogger, calls former Senator Edwards a Hypocritonissimo. He does this because, in edition to the large house issue (see Feb 2007 post on this site), Edwards has been critical of other candidates for accepting campaign donations from Rupper Murdoch while himself taking funds from Murdoch as part of a book publishing deal.

The Roger Simon link is:

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/08/hypocritonissim.php

and the story Roger Simon was commenting on was from a NY Post story in which Edwards states that part of the funds (reimbursement for expenses) he took from Murdoch ($300k) were provided to charity (although declining to provide records to back the assertion). Edwards does not claim that the $800k he received for royalties was provided to charities. In contrast to this, Edwards criticized Senator Clinton for receiving $20k in campaign contributions.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm


Senator Edwards also claimed (a few weeks ago) that he accepted a job (about $800k as a rainmaker) with a Hedge Fund to learn more about poverty.

As I noted before, I have a difficult time commenting on this because Sen Edwards makes my flesh crawl.

I will say I don't know why Simon should say that whatever hypocrisy Edwards is guilty of is dangerous. People have been using the poverty issue for their own ego feeding or for scams for many years.

Senator Vitter, Larry Flynt and Madame Palfrey

Rick Moran, a sometimes columnist (he lives in Illinois, has written a good bit and is generally identified with Republicans), has an essay online entitled, "hypocrisy all around".

It is about the facts concerning a escort/prostitution business operated by Madame Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Relevant undisputed facts:

Palfrey admits that some of her 30 or so employees (all women, one a college professor) engaged in sex for money (it is unknown which women did sex for money and which did not)

One of the clients of the business was Senator David Vitter (R- LA). Senator Vitter has acknowledged wrongdoing (but not criminal wrongdoing) and confessed to his wife and God. Senator Vitter is an advocate of family values, an opponent of homosexual marriate and an opponent of sex before marriage (presumably also a opponent of sex outside of marriage).

Larry Flynt, editor of Hustler (a magazine which not only has nudity but pictures violent, S&M and B&D sexual acts) has offered money to people willing to expose politicians and has said he will expose appropriate individuals (since Mr. Flynt is known to be a partisen Democrat), people assume he will expose only Republicans).

So Senator Vitter has done something he has told others not to do. Does this make him a hypocrite? My answer is Yes (although there is a contrarian view of hypocrisy that says that this is only a case of personel weakness). Assuming it is hypocrisy is it a big deal. I would say, No (I assume the sex here is consentual). Senator Vitter is away from home a great deal and, no doubt, has desires typical of someone his age and health.

Is Larry Flynt a hypocrite (for exposing people he disagrees with for doing things he doesn't disagree with)? This is pretty complex but I think Flynt here is not specifically saying Vitter shouldn't have sex outside of marriage (or thinking it). Flynt's actions are sleazy and disgusting but not, as I understand the term, hypocritical (although Moran thinks so).

Moran's article is at:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/hypocrisy_all_around.php

Rock Groups accuses earth-aid Rock concert of Hypocrisy

The Rock Group "Arctic Monkeys" stepped into the Global Warming debate, with among other things the following:

"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.

"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"

As it turns out, the organizers of the Earth-Aid concert are going to buy carbon offsets after calculating their carbon footprint.

All this and more at:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705025637.vyh5u7g0&show_article=1

Hillary on the Libby Sentence Commutation

Senator Hillary Clinton issued this statement from her official "Hillary for President" website:

7/2/2007
Statement of Hillary Clinton on Libby Commutation
Senator Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:
"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."

This website is:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2271

This statement brings up the issue of what Hillary said when her Husband was issuing pardons.

There were a lot of pardons (a pardon is a stronger measure than a commutation of sentence).

The official list of pardons is on the US Dept of Justice Website:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Here is what Marc Rich was pardoned for (in 2001 just before leaving office):

Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701

and here is what the Gregories (husband and wife members of the Puerto Rican Terrorist group FALN - there were others in the group) were pardoned for (march 15, 2000):

Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, etc.

Hillary did not denounce most of her husband's pardons (in fact at the time there was suspicion that these pardons were a form of vote buying since the Puerto Rican vote is substantial in NY and Hillary was running for Senate in NY at the time. She did, specifically endorse the FALN pardons, although the NYTimes (and others, including some who are criticizing the Libby commutation) defended these pardons at the time see:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DD143DF93AA3575AC0A96F958260

So let's run through the possibilities:

1 - Hillary didn't have an opinion of the Clinton Pardons, does now but isnt' saying
2 - Hillary favored the Clinton Pardons (at least the FALN ones, even if she says now she didn't and even if at the time she issued mealy mouth comments on those pardons) and still does but isn't saying
3 - Hillary was against the Clinton Pardons but didn't say so then
4 - Hillary was for the Clinton Pardons but isn't anymore

So many posibilities.

I personally think #2 is correct and if so, she is guilty of hypocrisy in that she thinks political pardons are OK but says otherwise (unless you posit that political pardons of Puerto Rican terrorists is OK but commuting the sentence of Republican perjurers isn't - an interesting argument would have to be made). One could hope some reporter will ask the appropriate hard questions but probably Hillary won't allow such questions so we will never know - alas since I personally think it is important to know whether a Presidential candidate thinks the FALN pardons are OK.

This same argument could be made in much less stark form for Sen Edwards and Sen Obama. Edwards was elected Senator from NC in 1994 so he was new to the job during the Clinton pardons. Obama was just a State Senator in 2000 and wasn't elected to the US Senate until 2004.

Barbara Walters Felt Tawdry - I wanted to vomit

Barbara Walters got a phone interview with Paris Hilton from the LA County jail. She almost landed the first post release interview with Ms Hilton (she had questions sketched out). But CNN and Larry King got the interview, somehow Barbara decided that it was Tawdry.

There is an amazing bit of self justification that Barbara goes through. She claims it wasn't Tawdry until the 'pay for interview' discussion, then it became tawdry and according to Barbara the folks at ABC didn't get outbid by CNN; no, they discovered journalism standards and furthermore it was because of Barbara.

Because I believe Ms Walters is lying, I will classify her as a hypocrite on this. She says she felt the Hilton interview was tawdry, she really is just jealous of Larry King.

FWIW, I think King is an awful interviewer; he has no willingness to construct a tough question and he has no ability to ask a follow up question; Walters may be a better interviewer; however she makes me want to vomit.

BTW, as explained by the LA TIMES, the networks do not pay directly for interviews, instead they give license fees, residuals, options on discounts at luxury hotels, etc. In that way, the networks can proudly say, "We do not pay for interviews."

This would be a case of hypocrisy also, but actually its closer to weaseling.

As posted on:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/walters_calls_idea_of_paris_interview_tawdry_61721.aspa

and

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-parismillion,0,7909619.story?coll=la-home-entertainment

DiCaprio defends

Apparently the charge of hypocrisy has registered in Hollywood. In an appearance promoting a new environmentalist documentary, Leonardo DiCaprio stated that he takes commercial flights as often as possible and implied that his fellow Hollywood environmentalist types are doing the best they can personnally to reduce their carbon footprint.

I don't have the fact available to evaluate this, e.g., information on electrical consumption at the constellation of DiCaprio properties, gasoline consumption in DiCaprio owned vehicles, number and nature of private jet flights. I suspect that DiCaprio is still producing dozens of times more carbon dioxide emissions than the US per capita average but can't prove it.

The article with the DiCaprio defense is:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070519184436.x9vgvtk2&show_article=1

More Celebrity CO2 emissions

Apparently Laurie David and Sheryl Crow are on tour promoting a 'fight global warming'.

Reports from around the blogosphere are that they both have, uh... issues here.

For example, at one site,

" ... Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" and global warming activist, told Texas A&M students to change their "individual behavior" in order to consume fewer resources and to help battle global warming. As an employee of Easterwood Airport, I would like to point out that Mrs. David flew to our campus in a luxurious private jet, which could be seen from 10 miles away due to the thick plume of smog it left in its wake. I am neither denying nor confirming the epidemic of global warming, I am simply pointing out that hypocrites such as Mrs. David don't care about the environment, only their own political agendas. This is proven time and again by these celebrities' and lobbyist's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. Richard PawlikClass of 2007:

This site is:

http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2007/04/12/MailCall/Laurie.David.Is.A.Hypocrite-2837056.shtml

there is more on Ms David (she also made a 'minimize bathroom tissue' effort) at:

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest51.html

What will be more famous however is the 'minimize bathroom tissue' writings of Sheryl Crow. Ms. Crow has called for a 1-square policy on bathroon tissue.

The Yahoo report is at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6583067.stm

Ms. Crow also seems to require 6 cars, 3 trackter trailers and 4 busses when she tours. This is based on the definitive work of "The Smoking Gun" at:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/scrow/scrow1.html

Whether this is a case of hypocrisy depends on whether you accept the greenhouse offset (I'm presuming that both Ms. David and Ms. Crow buy them).

Potential HIP HOP Hypocrisy

Last week, radio personality Don Imus was fired. He had referred to the women's basketball team at Rutgers as "... nappy hair hos". Numerous politicians criticized Imus, some calling for him to be fired. Two of the critics were Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both of whom are running for President.

Columnist Colbert King accuses Senator Clinton in a column called "From Clinton, Hip-Hop Hypocrisy". The link is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042001589.html

the basis of King's accusation is that Hillary received about $800k from a fundraiser hosted by (maybe partially organized by) an entertainer named Timbaland. Here are lyrics from a record called "Come and Get Me" by Timbaland:

"Nigga Your Time Is Up, I Aint Come To Kid You
I Knew You Niggas Was Dumb, But How Dumb Is You . . .
I'm A Ride Or Die Nigga, I Be Tearing [expletive] Up
We Aint Like Them Other Fools, Who Don't Compare To Us
All The Hoes Love A Nigga, They be Backing It Up
But Me I Love Money I Be Stacking It Up . . .
I'm Rich I Can Pay To Have You Six Feet Deep (Nigga)"

Similarly, Senator Obama met with entertainer Ludacris in Nov 06 to promote AIDS awareness. The Chicago Newspaper report on that is at: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8LNFUCO2&show_article=1&catnum=0

Ludacris is the performer of "Ho". A portion of the lyrics is:

Hooooooooo (Ho)
Youza Hoooooo (Ho)
Youza Hoooooo (Ho)
I said that youza hooooo (Ho)

Other parts of "Ho" are worse.

So the question is whether either of both Senators are guilty of Hypocrisy and if so, what level.

While I suspect both Senators are morally vain and intellectually dishonest I don't think the hypocrisy charge is completely set. Imus's position in talk radio is considerably different from the job of Ludacris or Timbaland. It may be that the nasty lyrics in hip-hop are more damaging than the comments by Imus. It would be interesting to hear the two Senators answer detailed questions about their relationship to hip-hop artists. Notwithstanding this, there are some distinctions that could be made between the Imus situation and the hip-hop supporters. Without further understanding their reasoning here, I'm unable to close the loop myself on this.

More on Gore (this time its a zinc mine)

The Nashville, TN newspaper has a substantive article on a zinc mine that uses mineral rights under property that has been in the Gore family for several decades. Evidently for these decades the zinc mining has enriched the Gore family and also emitted many tons of nasty stuff into the air and water.

The article is:

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070318/NEWS01/70316074

I don't think former VP Gore has ever said that nobody should own zinc mines. Furthermore, it is certainly possible, that the fact that zinc exists allows steel to be made more durable (certainly more corrosion resistant) and thus is a net good for the environment. Also the article doesn't give the relative tons of emission to tons of production of various zinc mines so its essentially impossible to tell if the mine using the Gore property was a relatively 'clean' mining operation or not. Thus I'm not going to call hypocrisy on this.

Notwithstanding the non- hypocrisy call the fact that Gore has this property shows the difficulty in being a truly environmentally benign person (also the ownership of the mansion that consumes so much electricity shows this). This wouldn't be an issue except that Gore has lent his name to a quasi religious anti global warming movement and has also stated that relatively painless steps can be done to reduce the impact on the environment. While the zinc mine issue is not a case of hypocrisy by itself, the insinuation of 'easy environmentalism' certainly is. Thus, it makes me a little sick in the stomach to hear Gore again and again on this general theme.

Glenn Greenwald with an amusing but inconsequential hypocrisy

A blogger named Patterico makes a convincing case that a fellow blogger named Glenn Greenwald is a hypocrite. The basic charge is that Greenwald accused various bloggers (LGF and Michelle Maukin) as operating a hate site because unmoderated comments were, uh... immoderate. However Greenwald also says that conservatives shouldn't look 'deep into the comments' in, say, the Huffington Post for immoderate comments.

What makes this especially amusing is that Patterico traces the IP address to show that someone using Greenwald's computer has made immoderate comments himself using pseudonyms. This detective word is explained at:

http://patterico.com/2006/07/27/4900/annotated-wuzzadem-the-facts-
behind-the-greenwald-sock-puppetry/

and a explanation of the commenters at left vs commenters at right sites is at:

http://patterico.com/2007/02/27/5886/glenn-greenwald-thomas-ellers-
and-rick-ellensburg-the-three-most-hypocritical-men-on-the-planet/

So Greenwald pretty obviously has done what he has said should not be done without an explanation, or an admission, of why he changed his position.

However since Glenn Greewald is not a very important character this bit of hypocrisy is not very important either.

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