Governor Howard Dean's Records.
Former governor and current candidate for the Dem nomination for President, Howard Dean, has been very critical of the lack of public availability of files of the VP Dick Cheney energy task force, certain 9/11 documents, etc. However, he has made his own records as Governor secret for 10 years which is 4 years longer than any previous VT governor.
An article (with an incredibly unflattering picture of Governor Dean) is at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/999347.asp
So, this is obviously a case of doing what you say shouldn't be done, i.e., hypocrisy. Next question is how serious is it. In my opinion, it is probably not serious. First, because it is easily correctable, second because whatever is in the records is about Vermont and how important can that be. By the way, the records of the energy task force are probably also unimportant. People spoke with other people, blah, blah. They made recommendations. Some were followed by the administration, some were not. So what.
Thursday, November 27, 2003
A new twist - Financial Hypocrisy in Europe
Back in 1997, the European Union agreed on a new unified currency, began work on a unified constitution (not yet done) and other similar things. To make this all work, the countries agreed that their annual budget deficit would be no more than 3% of GDP (this about the current level of the deficit in the US). Year after year, the leaders in the EU said this was the way to make Europe work. Obviously they didn't mean what they said. This week, the EU board gave Germany and France permission to exceed this amount.
An excellent summary of this appears in Slate at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091727/
Back in 1997, the European Union agreed on a new unified currency, began work on a unified constitution (not yet done) and other similar things. To make this all work, the countries agreed that their annual budget deficit would be no more than 3% of GDP (this about the current level of the deficit in the US). Year after year, the leaders in the EU said this was the way to make Europe work. Obviously they didn't mean what they said. This week, the EU board gave Germany and France permission to exceed this amount.
An excellent summary of this appears in Slate at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091727/
Sunday, November 23, 2003
General Clark yet again.
Slate has another article on General Clark.
It is at http://slate.msn.com/id/2091467/
The article is called "Hughpocrisy". Clark's former boss, General Hugh Shelton had, a few months ago, made a statement implying unethical behaviour by Clark but refused to elaborate leaving Clark unable to respond. Last week, Clark made a similar statement implying the he (Clark) had been removed as a CNN commentator unethically but refusing to elaborate leaving CNN unable to respond.
As they say, hypocrisy is the complement that vice gives to virtue. But they also say, "If you can't beat it, join it". I think the latter applies to last weeks comments by General Clark.
Slate has another article on General Clark.
It is at http://slate.msn.com/id/2091467/
The article is called "Hughpocrisy". Clark's former boss, General Hugh Shelton had, a few months ago, made a statement implying unethical behaviour by Clark but refused to elaborate leaving Clark unable to respond. Last week, Clark made a similar statement implying the he (Clark) had been removed as a CNN commentator unethically but refusing to elaborate leaving CNN unable to respond.
As they say, hypocrisy is the complement that vice gives to virtue. But they also say, "If you can't beat it, join it". I think the latter applies to last weeks comments by General Clark.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
General Clark meets with Ben and JLo
At a fundraiser on 11/17 where the Eagles sang Hotel California (apparently a favorite of General Clark), Ben and J Lo met with Clark for about 15 minutes. Of course, they could have been discussing anything (maybe marriage since General Clark has been married to the same woman for about 30 years). If I applied the usual rules of hypocrisy to Ben and J Lo that I do to elected officials, acedemic officials and the like, I wouldn't have enough time to even begin to analyze the various contradictions, insincere remarks and other things coming from what hollywood sometimes calls Beniffer. This was all reported in the Washington Post Style section page 3.
At a fundraiser on 11/17 where the Eagles sang Hotel California (apparently a favorite of General Clark), Ben and J Lo met with Clark for about 15 minutes. Of course, they could have been discussing anything (maybe marriage since General Clark has been married to the same woman for about 30 years). If I applied the usual rules of hypocrisy to Ben and J Lo that I do to elected officials, acedemic officials and the like, I wouldn't have enough time to even begin to analyze the various contradictions, insincere remarks and other things coming from what hollywood sometimes calls Beniffer. This was all reported in the Washington Post Style section page 3.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Slate writer defend General Clark
Today's webzine Slate had an article that begins:
------------------------------------
Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003, at 4:13 PM PT
What's so bad about winning a war?
I don't know whether Gen. Wesley Clark is qualified to be president, but Peter J. Boyer's profile in this week's New Yorker—which paints him as scarily unqualified—is an unfair portrait as well as a misleading...
-------------------------------------
The URL is: http://slate.msn.com//?id=2091194&
The charge of hypocrisy is not addressed. Basically, the article takes charges in the New Yorker article (e.g., Clark's fellow generals hate him and so did his boss the Secretary of Defense) and says, 'So what.'.
If you are a fan of hypocrisy, Wesley Clark is a gift that keeps giving.
Today's webzine Slate had an article that begins:
------------------------------------
Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003, at 4:13 PM PT
What's so bad about winning a war?
I don't know whether Gen. Wesley Clark is qualified to be president, but Peter J. Boyer's profile in this week's New Yorker—which paints him as scarily unqualified—is an unfair portrait as well as a misleading...
-------------------------------------
The URL is: http://slate.msn.com//?id=2091194&
The charge of hypocrisy is not addressed. Basically, the article takes charges in the New Yorker article (e.g., Clark's fellow generals hate him and so did his boss the Secretary of Defense) and says, 'So what.'.
If you are a fan of hypocrisy, Wesley Clark is a gift that keeps giving.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
General Clark sort of says something
The New Yorker had a long interview (Nov 17 issue which recently went partially on line) and article with General Clark in which the hypocrisy charge (noted on Oct 29) was raised.
The URL is:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact
General Clark's defense against the charge of hypocrisy is confusing. He admits that the war in Kosovo was not legally sanctioned (using the same standards he applies in Iraq). He continues to defend the was in Kosovo as justified (obviously he has to do this because of his role in the war). He first says that the Kosovo war was legal because of the threat to civilians in Kosovo but since everyone agrees that civilians were threatened (actually tortured and murdered) by Saddam, this justification falls apart. General Clark then says that the war in Iraq was fought under false pretenses. It isn't clear what he means by this since, he is on record as supporting the various justifications, e.g., he stated before the war that Iraq's potential WMD was a threat, he stated that humanitarian reasons for regime change were important, etc.
In sum, the defense against the charge of hypocrisy seems to be to just keep talking, get into tangential subjects, change the subject, etc.
Not very convincing.
The New Yorker had a long interview (Nov 17 issue which recently went partially on line) and article with General Clark in which the hypocrisy charge (noted on Oct 29) was raised.
The URL is:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact
General Clark's defense against the charge of hypocrisy is confusing. He admits that the war in Kosovo was not legally sanctioned (using the same standards he applies in Iraq). He continues to defend the was in Kosovo as justified (obviously he has to do this because of his role in the war). He first says that the Kosovo war was legal because of the threat to civilians in Kosovo but since everyone agrees that civilians were threatened (actually tortured and murdered) by Saddam, this justification falls apart. General Clark then says that the war in Iraq was fought under false pretenses. It isn't clear what he means by this since, he is on record as supporting the various justifications, e.g., he stated before the war that Iraq's potential WMD was a threat, he stated that humanitarian reasons for regime change were important, etc.
In sum, the defense against the charge of hypocrisy seems to be to just keep talking, get into tangential subjects, change the subject, etc.
Not very convincing.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
No response from Wesley Clark
As I noted on October 29, General Wesley Clark was charged with hypocrisy by one of the MSN Slate e-columnists. The charge was straightforward.
As I noted on November 1, General Clark had not responded.
Today, I spent some time on the Wesley Clark for President site: http://www.clark04.com/
I couldn't find any response to the charge.
Conclusion: General Clark doesn't think this specific type of a hypocrisy is a big deal. No reporters ask him about this either so maybe the press doesn't think it a big deal either.
As I noted on October 29, General Wesley Clark was charged with hypocrisy by one of the MSN Slate e-columnists. The charge was straightforward.
As I noted on November 1, General Clark had not responded.
Today, I spent some time on the Wesley Clark for President site: http://www.clark04.com/
I couldn't find any response to the charge.
Conclusion: General Clark doesn't think this specific type of a hypocrisy is a big deal. No reporters ask him about this either so maybe the press doesn't think it a big deal either.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
An Editorial on Liberal Hypocrisy by a Liberal
The Guardian (British newspaper) published an opinion piece.
The title is:
Mind the gap
Julie Burchill
Saturday November 1, 2003
The Guardian
The URL of the piece is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1075241,00.html
The opinion piece begins like this:
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I've mentioned before my absolute loathing of what I think of as "hipocrisy". Old-fashioned hypocrisy is bad enough, but my pet hate, spelt with an "i", is far, far worse. Basically, it's what Our Side does; and as we think of ourselves as the opposite of hypocrites - because we're hip! - it's twice as bad. Traditionally, we enlightened types like to think of hypocrites as Those People ....
---------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Burchill goes on to enumerate a number of specific examples of hypocrisy.
She mentions 5 entertainment celebrities, two British politicians and former President Clinton.
Her charges against these people are basically that they are all 'do what I say not what I do' people.
Her specific charge against one entertainer is that she is critical of divorse in the abstract and married to a divorced user of illegal drugs. If this were hypocrisy, nearly everyone would be guilty because nearly everyone is against breaking the law and nearly everyone commits minor crimes every week (petty littering, failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign).
Her specific charge against former President Clinton is that he advocated human decency and yet his personal life had indecent things in it (her actual words are more specific and refer to a sexual incident about which I'm not knowledgeable of the exact details). I'm not a cheerleader for Clinton but gee wiz, what is the President of the US supposed to do, advocate indecency?
In brief, I find her piece someone weak.
I'm also puzzled why anyone cares about hypocrisy in entertainers. Do people expect philosophy and lucid social thinking from entertainers? I'll grant that they are a lower danger hypocrisy but so what.
The end of her opinion piece is a warning of the danger of the hypocrisy of silence regarding the abuse of women in Islamic countries. I've covered the hypocrisy of silence previously on Sept 20, 2003.
The Guardian (British newspaper) published an opinion piece.
The title is:
Mind the gap
Julie Burchill
Saturday November 1, 2003
The Guardian
The URL of the piece is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1075241,00.html
The opinion piece begins like this:
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I've mentioned before my absolute loathing of what I think of as "hipocrisy". Old-fashioned hypocrisy is bad enough, but my pet hate, spelt with an "i", is far, far worse. Basically, it's what Our Side does; and as we think of ourselves as the opposite of hypocrites - because we're hip! - it's twice as bad. Traditionally, we enlightened types like to think of hypocrites as Those People ....
---------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Burchill goes on to enumerate a number of specific examples of hypocrisy.
She mentions 5 entertainment celebrities, two British politicians and former President Clinton.
Her charges against these people are basically that they are all 'do what I say not what I do' people.
Her specific charge against one entertainer is that she is critical of divorse in the abstract and married to a divorced user of illegal drugs. If this were hypocrisy, nearly everyone would be guilty because nearly everyone is against breaking the law and nearly everyone commits minor crimes every week (petty littering, failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign).
Her specific charge against former President Clinton is that he advocated human decency and yet his personal life had indecent things in it (her actual words are more specific and refer to a sexual incident about which I'm not knowledgeable of the exact details). I'm not a cheerleader for Clinton but gee wiz, what is the President of the US supposed to do, advocate indecency?
In brief, I find her piece someone weak.
I'm also puzzled why anyone cares about hypocrisy in entertainers. Do people expect philosophy and lucid social thinking from entertainers? I'll grant that they are a lower danger hypocrisy but so what.
The end of her opinion piece is a warning of the danger of the hypocrisy of silence regarding the abuse of women in Islamic countries. I've covered the hypocrisy of silence previously on Sept 20, 2003.
Nothing from General Clark in response to the charge of hypocrisy made 4 days ago.
Hypocrisy is not a 'guilty unless explained' kind of thing. If Clark doesn't respond to the charges, it doesn't make him an automatic hypocrite, nor does it get him off the hypocrite hook.
If he doesn't respond in a few more days, well, I'll just have to analyze it without him.
Hypocrisy is not a 'guilty unless explained' kind of thing. If Clark doesn't respond to the charges, it doesn't make him an automatic hypocrite, nor does it get him off the hypocrite hook.
If he doesn't respond in a few more days, well, I'll just have to analyze it without him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)