Senator Obama on Vouchers

Back in February 2008, there was some possibility that Senator Obama would be pro-school voucher. After all, his kids are in private school and part of his wife's compensation package is tuition support for dependents.

Since then, he has, apparently reversed his position.

Does the fact that he essentially receives a voucher for private school for his kids constitute hypocrisy given that he is against extending this priviledge to everyone.

Not the way I look at it.

Similarly, I don't think taking advantage of a tax management device that you believe is unwarrented, makes you a hypocrite. Nor is watching public television even though you believe govt shouldn't subsidize it.

Furthermore, on the subject of taking public funds for campaigning for President, Senator Obama once pledged to do this and now says he won't do so.

This is simply a matter of changing his mind - change you can believe in I guess.

However, it is not hypocrisy.

Gore Mansion Again



Back in February 2007, there were a number of reports that the family mansion belonging to former VP Al Gore in Nashville, TN used many times the amount of electricity and natural gas that similarly sized mansions did elsewhere in Nashville (and of course many, many times the amount used by an average house). I commented on these at the time.

Subsequent to these February 2007 reports, spokespersons for Mr. Gore stated that energy saving measures and alternate energy generating devices were being installed and subsequently work was done.

A new report indicates that the electricity consumption of the mansion has increased, rather than decreased since then. This new report does not contain information on natural gas consumption. A Gore spokesperson notes that the energy saving products were not completely installed until Nov 2007 and requests more time before a before/after comparison is made.

As noted back in 2007, although this looks bad for Mr. Gore, he may sincerely believe that the carbon offsets he purchases and the 'clean energy program' he participates in with the local electricity provider make him innocent of carbon-hogging. In addition, as noted before, there may be offices in the mansion and if, say, there are more people working in the mansion this year than in a previous year, it might account for some of the discrepancy.

Where to Drill for Oil; Where Not to Drill

President Bush has urged Congress to rescind statutory restrictions on oil exploration in various off shore areas but has not rescinded an Executive Order (dating back to 1990) that also restricts oil exploration. According to an Associated Press report, he considered doing this latter step but determined to delay doing so.

Is this hypocrisy (George thought it might be)?

Unfortunately, I don't really have the information to determine this. There are times that Congress passes a law that has some loose ends and the President issues an executive order that, ostensibly, allows the executive branch to tell the rest of the executive branch how to deal with the loose ends without making administrative blunders. I'm not sure if this is such a case.

UPDATE: On July 16, President Bush issued a new executive order allowing drilling.

Saletan is pro-hypocrisy on Hymenoplasty

(but with a caveat).

On the left is a doctor who, per his own testimony, performs 100 to 200 hymenoplasties a year. The patient is 23 years old.

This operation, is a type of plastic surgery which creates an artificial skin cover over the female sex organ. The skin cover is called the hymen. It is, from the point of view of the physical health of the patient, medically unnecessary. In ancient cultures having a hymen was a sign of virginity, although in many cases the hymen is torn off by action other than sexual intercourse.

Will Saletan, of Slate (a webzine owned by the Washington Post) dislikes the cultures (mostly Moslem but some others also) that gives women an incentive (and sometimes violently coerces them) to have this operation. However he acknowledges the existence of the culture and does not want to eliminate the choice of having this operation.

Saletan's article contains this core argument:

"...The virginity fetishism these women endure is sexist, hypocritical, and totally unrealistic. The pressure applied by families and communities to enforce it is obscene. One woman interviewed by the Times says her fiance's family is insisting that she go to Morocco so a doctor of their choosing can inspect her for proof of virginity. Don't even get me started on the mental sickness of insisting that your wife bleed on your wedding night. And to top it off, the procedure is a sham. Restoring your hymen doesn't make you a virgin.
You and I can sit here all day rehearsing these complaints. And some day, God willing, the twisted culture of virginity hypocrisy will wither away. But until it does, hypocrisy is its own best remedy. Help these women deceive their husbands and parents. If they want artificial hymen restoration, let them have it."

and here is a second hypocrisy noted in Saletan's piece:

"...The Journal [I'm unable to determine which Journal he is referring to] reports that Dr. Bernard Paniel, a Paris gynecologist, has modified the original Tunisian procedure to reduce invasiveness and coital pain and bleeding. In fact, the blood reduction is so effective that it threatens to expose the fraud. That's why he "provides his patients with vials of blood that can be spilled on wedding-night bed sheets."
Let's hear it for Dr. Paniel and his fellow fraud artists. Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes, they're better than one."

I'm at least somewhat sympathetic to the ideas noted in Saletan's argument. One problem I see is the cost. If the cost of these procedures is borne by society at large (via the French national health plan for example), the people who pay for these procedures are also victims of the culture that requires virgin brides. Another problem is that by using the procedure we may be perpetuating the culture.

I would consider this hypocrisy to be a fairly significant one, 4 on a 1-5 level (with 5 being very bad and 1 being harmless).

Another Blogger on Jet Setting Enviros

At a comment space on Amazon.com, a post entitled, Double Standards, Hypocrisy, and Hey! A Trip to Bonn notes,

"...is there anything quite like having 2,400 delegates from 162 Nations all jetting in to Bonn, Germany for a summit on--you guessed it--Climate Change?..."

I personally wonder if the author of this post did an analysis. If each of the people attending took public transportation for each of their trip and shut off all the electricity, etc. at their home during this conference, it might have made a slight decrease in total carbon emissions. Of course these assumptions are unlikely, however, what is likely is that each of the attendees considers their personal presence vital to this conference (on the other hand, this is, undoubtly, in many cases due to ego or bureaucratic game playing). The thing is that how many people are being hypocrites here is completely unknown.

Rabbi Berel Wein is against it.

Rabbi Wein titled a op ed "Hypocrisy". It was published May 16, 2008 in the Jerusalem Post.

He criticizes leaders who either argue for morality and don't practice it or leaders who overpromise (I can't tell which).

Here is a sample of each:

Morality - "Hypocrisy is the greatest enemy of religious leaders. Fallen clergy are the stuff of legend already, let alone popular literature and investigative media.

They are especially vulnerable because of their usual posture of moral self-righteousness and their penchant for criticizing sharply those whom they feel to be derelict in their behavior, policies or thoughts and attitudes.

Thus when their faults are exposed it is not only they that fall but they take down the faith that they represent as well. The tendency in certain religious circles and society to glorify its leadership to the extent that these people become superhuman only exacerbates the vulnerability to the accusation of hypocrisy."

Leadership overpromising - "I have always felt that part of Winston Churchill’s greatness in the leadership of Great Britain in World War II lay in his refusal to make sweeping promises or proclaim easy solutions.

He promised the English people “sweat, blood and tears” with the hope that eventually victory would come their way.

This promise in all of its forms was eventually completely fulfilled . There were no promises of settling ancient disputes in a matter of months, no brazen commitments for immediate victories and no hiding from the evident facts of the situation. This enabled him to escape from the plague of hypocrisy that has hounded so many of our leaders on the social, military and diplomatic fronts."

I personally can't tell what he defines as hypocrisy. If preachers preach good behavior but admit that people are frail, I don't see what the hypocrisy is when the preacher is frail. If leaders believe (mistakenly or because of ego) their own promises and can't deliver, they are simply mistaken or egomaniacs but not necessarily hypocrites.

Bottom line: Rabbi Wein didn't define hypocrisy and I can't backward engineer his definition from his article.

Are We Being Hypocritical?

This is a question asked by Trudie Skyler (wife of Sting - the entertainer). The Daily Mail (a British Tabloid) answers the question in the affirmative in the headline of their article.

However, I can't extract enough information to figure out if, Ms. Skyler actually acknowledged hypocrisy or what the specific charge was. She does acknowledge wanting to curtail use of Genetically Modified products but that's not quite the same thing as having a large carbon footprint (which Sting acknowledges). This is way too muddled to come to a conclusion but it's interesting that Sting's wife seems to have asked herself this question during a press event.

Is Hypocrisy a weak term?

Roger Simon, liberal turned not-so liberal (conservative in some areas), says that Mr. Simon was

"was struck by the amazing size of David Geffen's yacht and this morning we injected a photo into the story..."

and concludes [actually an interim conclusion] that

"...We are of course here at a level that makes hypocrisy a weak term. Sure, Geffen and Huffington (with her umpteen thousand square foot home ameliorated by a Prius) are hypocritical in the sense that "hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue," but there is something more complicated afoot."

I think Mr. Simon is saying that because Mr. Geffen is an advocate of reducing greenhouse emissions, he is a hypocrite.

Well there may be something to that but Mr. Simon does not cite any source noting Geffen's advocacy on that point and I couldn't find anything decisive myself when I browsed a few times.

Not guilty by lack of half the evidence.

Incidentally Geffen apparently is only a part owner of the yacht. The other owner is Larry Ellison (CEO of The Oracle Corporation, Inc.).

The yacht, named 'Rising Sun' is said (by Wikipedia) to be about 450' ft long and is one of the world's longest yachts (however, Ann and I have been on cruise ships that are over twice this length, specifically the Golden Princess and the Diamond Princess).

This subject came up because an admirer of Senator Obama had posted some information on what the Senator had said about Pennsylvania on a website and the owner of the website was on Geffen's yacht at the time and didn't review the posting for a few days.

Naval Officer who worked in prostitution ring taught leadership and ethics at the Naval Academy

Here is the first part of a newspaper article today on the subject:

A Navy officer who taught a leadership and ethics course at the Naval Academy faces dismissal after she testified Thursday that she moonlighted as an escort for the so-called D.C. Madam.

Lt. Cmdr. Rebecca C. Dickinson, 38, admitted in federal court Thursday that she performed sex acts with men in exchange for money as a call girl for Deborah Jean Palfrey (who is in the image above holding what was purported to be a client list) from October 2005 until April 2006.

I don't know for sure what she taught at the leadership and ethics course but its a safe bet that she told the midshipmen not to do anything reasonably perceivable as unethical.

Well, there you go, a true case of hypocrisy. The damage will be very significant for LCDR Dickinson. She will likely lose rank and be discharged under less than honorable conditions. This will decrease, maybe eliminate whatever pension rights she might have accrued (she has been in the service since 1986 and has been a commissioned officer since 1993).

The damage to society is probably much less. There will likely be extra scrutiny provided to other Naval Academy instructors and other minor effects.

Who is the Hypocrite on Free Trade?

Who isn't?

In the past few weeks, there have been some hypocrisy charges in the matter of the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia (FTA-C).

One set of charges is that opponents of the FTA-C, including representative Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives and Senator Harry Reid, the President of the US Senate and various labor organizations realize that the FTA-C is good for the US but oppose it anyway because the public mistakenly blames various problems on NAFTA. Part of the reason for this is said to be that elected officials (like Pelosi and Reid) have been demonizing NAFTA for years.

Another set of charges is that individuals in the campaigns of Senators Obama and Clinton actually support free trade agreements but pretend not to in order to keep working for the candidates they support. A interesting variety of this is that the Obama campaign accused the Clinton campaign of hypocrisy even though Obama advisers have basically done similar things.

This is pointed out at the link.

Assuming the Obama campaign realizes this, then yes, they are being hypocrites in accusing the Clinton campaign of hypocrisy.

This is the first case I can recall of a double reverse hypocrisy. Cool.

FWIW:

bloggress Wonkette charged Mark Penn with hypocrisy in talking to Columbia about promoting the FTA-C, while in a leadership role in an anti-NAFTA Clinton campaign; and,

The leftwing MotherJones magazine reported on Obama senior adviser telling Canada that when Obama denounced NAFTA, he (Obama) didn't really mean it.

Materialism for me;

not for thee

Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who is mentioned below, reportedly made anti-materialism and anti-middle classism part of his sermonizing.

To the left is a retirement home being built for Rev. Wright. According to news reports, it is 10,000 sq feet, will cost about $1.5 million, is being financed mostly by the Church he served and is in a gated community withing the village of Tinley Park in Cook County about 15 miles southwest of the Hyde Park area where the church is. The village of Tinley Park was, per the previous census, about 90% white, about 2% black. It has a mean household income about 50% higher than the US average.

I don't have the exact words of Wright's sermons so one could build a non-hypocrisy case based on parsing the language. Or one could build a case base on the basis that the house is required to be this size and in this location because it will be used to host special church events.

Most likely, however, is that Rev Wright feels he is above his own words. That is, normal people should beware of materialism but people who have a high conscious, like himself, need not fear materialism.

This seems like a case where the only 'victims' are members of his own church.

Keith Olbermann: Hillary must renounce Ferraro Comments but Obama doesn't have to renounce Wright's comments.

Keith Olbermann is the host of an MSNBC TV show. It is opinion show and Olbermann has opinions. There is an group who evidently watch Keith Olbermann's show and write about it providing cases where they disagree with what Olbermann says. This group is called Olbermann Watch.

Obermanwatch has produced a video that shows Mr. Olbermann's comments about former Representative Ferraro's statement to the effect that Senator Obama would not be a serious (or as serious) a candidate if he were not black (she made the comment while serving on a committee in Senator Clinton's campaign). It then shows Mr. Olbermann's comments that essentially defend Senator Obama's decision not to leave the church he belongs to even though Senator Obama admits many of Reverend Wright's statements are wrong, bigotted, etc.

I have a hard time with this because I can't follow Olbermann's logic in either the Clinton-Ferraro case. It could be that Olbermann is being a hypocrite by saying, in effect, that in an identical case, candidate A must do something and candidate B doesn't need to.

In fact the cases are not alike at all. What Ferraro said about the advantage Obama has in being black was very similar, though not identical, to what Obama said about himself. Whereas Wright accused the U.S. of things like promoting drug dealing in black neighborhoods and developing the AIDS virus as a weapon against blacks - statements for which there is no evidence - and indeed don't even make sense.

Thus it seems to me (and I'm not doing a detailed study here because it would require watching a lot of Mr. Olbermann and I would find that quite unpleasant) that Olbermann's behavior here is not so much hypocrisy as meandering incoherence in service to an overarching policy. Thus, since what Olbermann really believes is "all polemics are legitimate in service to whatever people/cause I favor" he is being consistent even when he says, "2+2 doesn't really equal 4".

More to it than Hypocrisy

Well the post below is based on the assumption that there was nothing beyond adultry. The woman on the left is Diane Dixon, a former Olympic athlete (1980s) who claims to have gotten a job recently through then Lt Governor Paterson and to have been in a romantic/sexual relationship with Paterson at some time earlier.

Wouldn't Hyprocrisy Be Better

Earlier today, David Paterson, the new Governor of New York and his wife Michelle, mutually announced that they had both been in multiyear adulterous relationships.

I assume this is because the new Governor has the job Spitzer used to have before his involvement in a prostitution ring was revealed.

Personally, I don't see any hypocrisy and I can't find any angry rants accusing the new Governor of hypocrisy. However, even if David and Michelle had previously campaigned for faithful marriages visiting colleges and high schools, I would not have minded hypocrisy.

posted by Martin Weiss # 5:14 PM

Senator Obama and Reverend Wright

One of the posters on Democratic Underground has made the case that Senator Obama (on the left) is a hypocrite with respect to Obama's support of the Reverend Wright,

The specific charge is well stated,

"...You can't publicly preach "unity" and getting beyond race with a "post-racial politics" (and present yourself as the only available vehicle to lead us to this promised land) and then in private endorse for two decades someone (Rev. Jeremiah Wright on the right of the picture) who couldn't be more diametrically opposed to Obama's public rhetoric."

Senator Obama's statement in response to this charge (actually it is a response to the general situation - I'm pretty sure Senator Obama didn't read this particular comment) is essentially the church attender equivalent of the moron defense, that is, "I didn't know the Revered Wright was saying this stuff."

If you assume the moron defense isn't true, it makes Senator Obama a hypocrite in the sense that a lot of politicians are hypocrites. This, in my opinion, may make Senator Obama a better person and maybe a better potential candidate because he is forcing himself to come to terms with the specifics of Reverend Wright's sermons, (e.g., America is bad, America invented the AIDs virus, whites all hate blacks, etc.).

Incidentally the odds that Obama is a hypocrite here is strengthened by another incident, namely the visit which an economic adviser to Obama made to the Canadian consulate in Chicago and allegedly told the Canadians that Obama didn't really mean the anti NAFTA comments he (Obama) made before the Ohio primary.

Senator Obama's response to the controversy was reproduced on the Huffington Post. The response was probably because of mainstream media reports such as one on ABC news.

Here is some of the response in which he denounces "the statements, without noting which they are",

"... Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

and here is the moron defense,

"...the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn. The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

Governor Elliot Spitzer:

He Prosecuted Prostitution Rings; Now He's Caught in One

Naturally, some people are accusing Governor Spitzer (I think he is soon to be ex Governor Spitzer) of being a hypocrite.

One such accusation is at a blog called "Protein Wisdom". Dan Collins, the author of the blog accuses, Spitzer of being, "Mr. American Hypocrite".

Here is what the blog post says,

"... he previously prosecuted — quite aggressively and publicly – several citizens for the “crime” of operating an adult prostitution business. That hypocrisy precludes me from having any real personal sympathy for Spitzer, and no reasonable person could defend him from charges of rank hypocrisy. And he should be treated no differently — no better and no worse — than the average citizen whom law enforcement catches hiring prostitutes. (in the original the underline was a hot link to a political cartoon)"

OK. So what specifically makes Spitzer a hypocrite.

Did he ever say, "No one should ever use prostitutes".

Did he ever say, "No one should ever assist in the transportation of prostitutes across a State Line"

Did he ever say, "No one should ever intentionally transfer funds with the intent of disguising the source of the funds."

Maybe, but Dan Collins gives no example.

What Dan perhaps means is that Spitzer engaged in egregious moral posturing while Attorney General of NY State and now it has been demonstrated that he is culpable of immoral activity.

If so, that would be classified as a lowish level of hypocrisy as it self corrects assuming Spitzer will no doubt resign and leave government in disgrace.

In the image, the Governor's wife is on the left, the Governor on the right. The image was taken at a press conference where the Governor admitted an ambiguous wrong doing and declined to take any questions.

;

Bias or Hypocrisy

Dennis Boyles thinks it is the latter. Here is a section from an article he did for the online version of the National Review (NRO).

"...The problem at the Times isn’t bias, which is always acceptable. It’s hypocrisy. The Times claims to represent a set of journalistic ideals. But their daily practices show a blatant, if situational disregard for the standards of their profession..."

The background is pretty complicated. The New York Times did an article about Senator (and presumptive Republican Presidential nominee) John McCain. The article (which is about 3000 words long and I haven't read it), mentions a series of events in 1999 in which McCain was in the company of a lobbyist for the TV company Univision. The lobbyist is much younger than McCain and, at least in 1999, was very pretty (and bears some resemblance to Mrs McCain). The ombudsman (Clark Hoyt) for the NY Times considered the article to be unfairly implicating McCain in a romantic affair. The ombudsman stated in a front page critique (also published in the NY Times) that the article should not have been published because it was inadequately sourced, that is, there was no evidence whatsoever of a romantic relationship. Mr. Boyle thinks the problem isn't a journalistic mistake but that the deliberate agenda of the NY Times is to hurt conservatives and republicans and promote liberals and democrats and furthermore than the ombudsman knows this, or should know it. Now if Mr. Boyle does think that the NY Times ombudsman is biased against Republicans and is trying to pretend that this bias does not exist, that would be hypocrisy. However, Boyle has no way to see into Mr. Hoyt's mind. Thus, I think the NRO should have adopted an "assuming..." point. The NRO did give some evidence that the NY Times is biased, namely that a previous ombudsman said that it was a liberal paper. However, this does not demonstrate very much about Mr. Hoyt. Charge unproved. Here is the URL for Boyle's article:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTRhYTlhYTAxNWJjMjZiNTZjNzNiMDQzZjFmOTAxNWE=

and as a follow up, a robopoll (the Rasmussen company uses computers to call and take input) shows, "...By a 50% to 18% margin, liberal voters have a favorable opinion of the paper. By a 69% to 9%, conservative voters offer an unfavorable view. The newspaper earns favorable reviews from 44% of Democrats, 9% of Republicans, and 17% of those not affiliated with either major political story...."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/24_have_favorable_opinion_of_new_york_times

Jailbird Wants to Pray - Hypocrisy is the charge

A blogger in Baltimore, who is also attending law school as well as blogging and trying to be a practicing orthodox Jew, has posted an entry accusing either an individual or possibly a group of people as hypocrites. The only case he cites is that of an orthodox Jew convicted of major fraud who is suing the State Corrections Department for refusing to accommodate his request for an appropriate place to pray. The convict apparently maintains that he is unable to pray from his cell because there is a toilet in it rendering the location unsuitable for Jewish prayer under Jewish religious law. The poster does not dispute the fact that the understanding of the convict regarding Jewish law is correct. Instead he mocks the request of the convict with an accusation of hypocrisy.

Here is his accusation of hypocrisy:

"...I fail to understand how these people can be so Machmir in all aspects of life, but when it comes to money, they feel that they can do whatever they please. TAXES?! Who pays taxes? To a Goyishe government!? The hypocrisy in which these people live their lives is astonishing.

I would like to believe that Hashem doesn't as readily accept the prayers of people who live their lives seeped in such hypocrisy as he does mine and yours...."

This hypocrisy accusation, like so many others, doesn't specify exactly what actions (or statements) are associated with hypocrisy. Even worse, in this case, the charge of hypocrisy seems to be made against an undefined group ("these people") .

If I were being generous, I would guess that the accuser meant to say that people who adopt a highly public 'holier than thou' persona are hypocrites when they commit highly public, egregious and substantial crimes. If this is the case, it would be a case of hypocrisy but only to the annoying or minimally dangerous level (as I defined those levels back on August 31, 2003).

However, if I were being less generous, I would have to say this is an example of poor thinking. A reasonable way of interpreting the accusation is to think the accuser meant that persons who wish to be rigorously correct in their ritual practice must be completely law abiding in their civic affairs. Now, here is the problem. I doubt that anyone, other than perhaps babies and nursing home patients is completely law abiding. I estimate that more than 99% of everyone who drives disobeys the 'come to a complete stop at a stop sign' rule. I estimate a similar percentage of people who regularly go for a walk, violate the litter law at some time. Similarly huge percentages of people use a pen from the office at home, etc. Would such civil crimes merit the charge of hypocrisy if they were performed by persons who were otherwise rigorously correct in their ritual practice. I'm betting the accuser would not make the hypocrisy charge in this case.

Perhaps the thought of someone else being a hypocrite is so strong that it turns the brain of otherwise clear thinking persons into mush.

The blog of the Baltimore law student is:
http://alanlaz.blogspot.com/

The Baltimore law student's post for Feb 18, 2008 refers to an article two days earlier in the New York Times. This article is at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/16prison.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1203337704-hUa5prXK2zW6M82ORqRa3A&oref=slogin

Did he really think it was a nice hat.

Here is a trivial case of hypocrisy, assuming it really was hypocrisy.

Today, a US Congressman complimented me on my hat. If he didn't mean it, it was just a trivial case, like asking "how are you?". when you don't actually want to know.

here is the entry from the Weiss Chronicle Blog

Thursday, December 06, 2007

"Nice Hat." said the Congressman

Today I was briefing a Congressman on something. In the introductory smalltalk I noted that I had never been in an office with a stuffed warthog (he had not just a stuffed warthog but a stuffed bear, a stuffed lion and about 6 stuffed deer, ibex, etc. After my brief I was putting on my coat and hat (which were needed because today was really, really cold with snow on the ground) and the Congressman said, "Nice Hat" (I was wearing the one that is felt and you can fold and bend it).

So on the way home I noted to the people that I was with that this was the first time I ever got a compliment from a Congressman about my hat.

"and you think its sincere?" asked one of the people.

I responded that I had a hard time believing a US Congressman thinks its worthwhile to use insincere compliments to win a favor from a mid level bureaucrat.

Was Maimonides a Hypocrite (in the "Letter to Yemen")

I take a class on Monday evenings. This evening we were studying the Letter (a.k.a., Epistle) to Yemen. It addresses the same overarching problem as one Maimonides wrote earlier which has come to be called the "Letter on Martyrdom". In the Martyrdom letter, the Jews of N. Africa were being oppressed and forced to convert to Islam by a Sunni sect. In the Yemen letter, the Jews of Yemen were being oppressed and forced to covert to Islam by a Shiite sect. In the former case, Maimonides address the issue of whether martyrdom is required religiously. In the latter case, he addresses the religious and theological significance of the oppression.

In the Yemen letter he states at one point that the oppression yields the benefit of removing from Judaism, those who are either not pious or not pure descendants of the revelation at Sinai. This sounds unkind, (even a bit like a Lord Vodermort speech), to our modern sensibility.

I guess that most of the class and maybe most people who've read this believe that Maimonides was making a pastoral (or polemic) point and didn't really believe it. The goal would have been to comfort the people in Yemen.

If so, this is hypocrisy. However, it is the good kind.