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
Thursday, October 12, 2006
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).
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).
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Good Hypocrisy and Former Representative Mark Foley
Yesterday, Congressman Mark Foley resigned subsequent to press reports that he had sent pedophilic (I would write creepy pedophilic but I think that might be redundant) emails and IMs to male high schoolers and pages. It seems that Mark Foley has for some time been on the House Missing and Exploited Children's caucas and co-authored legislation some years ago to control virtual child pornography. An article from 2002 explains that the legislation was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to the dismay of then Congressman Foley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/national/17CHIL.html?ex=1159934400&en=79b2c6a371c7fb10&ei=5070
Now lets suppose that Congressman Foley co-authored and supported legislation that would have made the emails and IMs he sent illegal (actually I don't think it did). Thus he would have been doing something he denounced, i.e., acted hypocritically.
However, it may be that Mr. Foley's role in the prohibition of virtual pornography was motivated by the self awareness that he was attracted by underage men (or boys). Actually, I think is probable. He thus was, in effect, trying to legislate in hopes of protecting society from himself. If so, this is not just a harmless hypocrisy but an actual good hypocrisy.
Yesterday, Congressman Mark Foley resigned subsequent to press reports that he had sent pedophilic (I would write creepy pedophilic but I think that might be redundant) emails and IMs to male high schoolers and pages. It seems that Mark Foley has for some time been on the House Missing and Exploited Children's caucas and co-authored legislation some years ago to control virtual child pornography. An article from 2002 explains that the legislation was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to the dismay of then Congressman Foley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/national/17CHIL.html?ex=1159934400&en=79b2c6a371c7fb10&ei=5070
Now lets suppose that Congressman Foley co-authored and supported legislation that would have made the emails and IMs he sent illegal (actually I don't think it did). Thus he would have been doing something he denounced, i.e., acted hypocritically.
However, it may be that Mr. Foley's role in the prohibition of virtual pornography was motivated by the self awareness that he was attracted by underage men (or boys). Actually, I think is probable. He thus was, in effect, trying to legislate in hopes of protecting society from himself. If so, this is not just a harmless hypocrisy but an actual good hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)