A speech with internal hypocrisy

Here is the first part of a speech by President Obama addressing the Copenhagen Conference on Global Warming:

"Good morning. It is an honor for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. All of you would not be here unless you — like me — were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, it is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. This much we know.

The question, then, before us is no longer the nature of the challenge — the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, I have to be honest, as the world watches us today, I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now, and it hangs in the balance.

I believe we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of a common threat. That's why I come here today — not to talk, but to act." (Applause.)

So if I understood this correctly, after saying this Obama would have signed something at this point. However, that is not what happened. Instead, he kept talking and talking. The rest of this speech follows:

"Now, as the world's largest economy and as the world's second largest emitter, America bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That's why we've renewed our leadership within international climate change negotiations. That's why we've worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. That's why we've taken bold action at home — by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

These mitigation actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet global responsibilities. We are convinced, as some of you may be convinced, that changing the way we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future — that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industries, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. We're convinced, for our own self-interest, that the way we use energy, changing it to a more efficient fashion, is essential to our national security, because it helps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and helps us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So I want this plenary session to understand, America is going to continue on this course of action to mitigate our emissions and to move towards a clean energy economy, no matter what happens here in Copenhagen. We think it is good for us, as well as good for the world. But we also believe that we will all be stronger, all be safer, all be more secure if we act together. That's why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to certain steps, and to hold each other accountable to certain commitments.

After months of talk, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so. Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. And I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we're living up to our obligations. Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn't make sense. It would be a hollow victory.

Number three, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least developed and most vulnerable countries to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion by 2012. And yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton, my Secretary of State, made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if — and only if — it is part of a broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It's a clear formula — one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord — one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

I just want to say to this plenary session that we are running short on time. And at this point, the question is whether we will move forward together or split apart, whether we prefer posturing to action. I'm sure that many consider this an imperfect framework that I just described. No country will get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and no obligations with respect to transparency. They think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price; I understand that. There are those advanced nations who think that developing countries either cannot absorb this assistance, or that will not be held accountable effectively, and that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor — one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.

Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it's time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We are ready to get this done today — but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk; it's better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past — and with courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibility to our people, and the future of our planet. Thank you very much." (Applause.)

But this was not the only talking because after this event there was a well publicized meeting with the President of the PR of China.

Can we hypothesize anything other than hypocrisy. It seems Obama, after saying the time for talking is over continues to talk.

Maybe Obama considers the speech after the "not to talk but to act" is needed to have something to act on. Or maybe he considers these last 14 paragraphs to be pontification which is actually 'action'. Or maybe different parts of this speech were written by different people and Obama didn't actually do a 'sanity check'. Or maybe something else. It seems hypocrisy to me though unless we focus on the fuller phrase "... I come here today — not to talk, but to act". If we analyze this we can infer tha Obama came to act but the speech (talking) is just something he had to do; the price of 'acting'. Of course there was no actual acting but Obama could say he came for the acting and the fact that there was none is not his fault.






The text of the speech (coutesy of the AP) is taken from here.

Unions and the New York Times

Immediately below this paragraph is a selection of an editorial on the subject (the main point was support for Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor based on her pro-union views) from the New York Times dated Nov 29, 2008,

"....Even modest increases in the share of the unionized labor force push wages upward, because nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones that collectively bargain for increases. By giving employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities between executive pay and rank-and-file pay.

The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.

There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending...."

And immediately below this paragraph is a news story, from the NYTimes, reporting on Nov 13, 2009. The report is that the NYTimes is laying off employees and moving editorial jobs to Florida where they would not be unionized.

"The New York Times News Service will lay off at least 25 editorial employees next year and will move the editing of the service to a Florida newspaper owned by The New York Times Company, the newspaper and the Newspaper Guild said Thursday...The plan for the news service calls for The Gainesville Sun, whose newsroom is not unionized and has lower salaries, to take over editing and page design...."

So is this hypocrisy. Actually, in my opinion it is not. The 2008 editorial did not say, "companies should not fire union employees and hire non union ones". The editorial implied (it wasn't actually as clear as it could have been) that the law or the regulations of the Dept of Labor should make it harder to do this. This is similar in some ways to the Congressman who advocates more legislation to increase morality being caught in immoral action. Indeed, because the NYTimes, which isn't doing well financially (the market cap is down about 70% from 5 years ago) knows the forces that compel companies to favor non union workers and simply wants the law or regulations to balance the scales.

NYTimes Nov 29 2008 editorial is here.
News report on NYTimes sending jobs to Florida is here.

Another Signing Hypocrisy

Back in June 2009, I addressed the Signing Hypocrisy based on the 'sunshine policy'.

Here I address the 'signing statement' policy.

Before becoming President, then President-Elect Obama had a pretty strict sounding policy.

Here is a Q&A from the Change.Gov website


Q: "What will you do as President to restore the Constitutional protections that have been subverted by the Bush Administration and how will you ensure that our system of checks and balances is renewed?" Kari, Seattle

A: President-elect Obama is deeply committed to restoring the rule of law and respecting constitutional checks and balances.That is why he has pledged to review Bush Administration executive orders. President-elect Obama will also end the abuse of signing statements, and put an end to the politicization that has taken place within the Department of Justice and return that agency to its historic and apolitical mission of fair and impartial administration of justice.

Notwithstanding the Q&A above, President Obama has issued quite a number of signing statements.

Among the people who've noticed this are some self described progressives in Congress and they've issued a warning against this practice.

Unless Obama maintains that there is some obvious difference between bad signing statements and good signing statements (other than when Bush did it the practice was bad but when Obama does it the practice is good), this seems to be a pretty clear case of hypocrisy (since Obama hasn't issued a 'I've changed my mind' type statement).

I consider this a minor impact hypocrisy. Very few people (mostly far left democrats who aren't going to change into moderates or conservatives any time soon) really cared about then President's signing statements and very few people (the same far lefters and some Republicans who want to embarrass Obama on this matter) will care that Obama is doing signing statements.

Personally, I don't see why the President should not issue such statements. Congress issues Committee Reports (that can not be vetoed) when passing legislation and Presidential signing statements simply balance power in this case.

The signing statements of the President give a basis for the Cabinet departments to construe important matters. In one case, the Office of Legal Counsel used a signing statement to conclude that President Obama could summarily disregard statute (and FWIW, I agreed both with the Obama signing statement and the OLC statement).



Pre inaugural statement on signing statements is here.
Article about progressive opposition to Obama signing statement practice is here.
At least one newspaper has also denounced the statement and the editorial is here.
DOJ-OLC statement on constitutionality of paragraph 7054 of 2009 Foreign Appropriation Act is here.

A Stark Example of Hypocrisy

(or is it?)

Recently, the US House of Representative voted (mostly along party lines) to issue a formal rebuke to Joe Wilson (smaller image). Representative Wilson shouted "You lie" during an address to the joint house/senate by President Obama.

It seems one of the people voting for the rebuke was Pete Stark (D-CA, 13th).

Some years ago Pete Stark, in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives said that then President Bush was sending men to Iraq to have their heads blown off for his (Bush's) amusement. Republicans attempted to have the House issue a rebuke to Stark but it was defeated (mostly along party lines).

Is this hypocrisy on the part of Representative Stark and everyone else who voted one way in the 2007 case and the other way in the 2009 case.

There are some differences as well as similarities between the two cases.

Similarities - Both Stark and Wilson apologized (Wilson apologized twice but Stark went on to call Bush a liar in other cases and also insulted other members of the House, including in his own party soon after the event). Both Stark and Wilson were rebuked by the head of their party in the House of Representatives.

Differences - Stark did it in a prepared speech, Wilson's shout out seems at least partially spontaneous; Wilson did it in the presence of the President; Wilson's insult is more specific and actually fantastic (notwithstanding many on the left said Pelosi erred in rebuking him and that Stark shouldn't apologize -see the first hotlink on this - I can't find any prominent Republicans making a similar claim ).

The only possible difference which seems to me significant is the on site presence of the President at the time of the shout out. Its probably a case of gross hypocrisy but determining this requires understanding the thoughts of the people who voted. This understanding is beyond me.

As to significance, Stark is from a reliably Democratic district.

article on the rebuke of Wilson here and here
article on the non rebuke to Stark here and here
article mentioning both Wilson and Stark here

Senator Obama
vs
President Obama

Back in 2006, then Senator Obama was against raising the debt ceiling. Here is what he said in a speech on the Senate floor,

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Then Senator Obama also made this speech in 2006

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.


At the time the national debt was about $6B. Then Senator Obama voted against the increase in the debt ceiling.

This fall the Senate takes up a bill to raise the debt ceiling again at the behest of now President Obama. There probably won't be a 'please raise the debt' speech by the President so we won't be able to see a word to word comparison. This means that Obama may be able to claim, albeit implausibly, that he was against the increase or that he was for the increase with caveats.

A related issue is Paul Krugman of the NYTimes.

Here is Krugman in 2004 (the deficit was $400B)

Well, basically we have a world-class budget deficit not just as in absolute terms of course - it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world - but it's a budget deficit that as a share of GDP is right up there.

It's comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country.

It's biggest than Argentina in 2001.

and here is Krugman recently (as the deficit went well over $1,500B:

Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but it’s not catastrophic.

Krugman, I think would defend this by saying that in 2004 we needed to cut back spending (although he never advocated any specific spending cuts) but now we don't because the world economy was booming then and slumping now. If so, it would have been nice to have a plausible set of 'ready to be made' cuts available when the economy gets better.

Anyway, this is a bit too complicated for a hypocrisy analysis. Krugman is simply a polemist in the clothing of an economist and his polemics are consistent: Republicans bad, Democrats are mostly good but sometimes bad.


Obama positions from article on The Hill and Krugman quotes are from the Washington Examiner

Alcohol Tax Hypocrisy
(or is it)?

Michael J. Rodrigues (whose picture is offset in front on the image) is a member of the Massachusetts Legislature (and a member of the "ways and means" committee in that body and thus important in tax law). He has a license plate with the '29' on it. He led a successful effort in the legislature to increase the tax on alcohol. His car is parked near a store that sells alcohol in New Hampshire near the Massachusetts border along I-95. A person at that parking lotsaw him (Rodrigues) loading several boxes of liquor into asked him (Rodrigues) if he was on official business. Mr. Rodrigues got angry and insulted the questioner.

Rep Rodrigues probably did not break Massachusetts law which allows up to 20 gallons at a time to be brought into the State for personal consumption.

Although I consider the actions of Rodrigues to that of a slimebucket, I can't find any record of Rodrigues saying, "Don't buy alcohol out of state" or "I won't buy alcohol out of state."

Sorry. No hypocrisy.

The source for this, including the image on the left is from the Boston Herald.

Warren Buffet Hypocrite?

At THE NEW EDITOR there is an article that is entitled,

"Is Warren Buffet a Big Fat Hypocrite?"

Since no information is given on Buffet's weight, waist size, etc. (the image doesn't show a fat guy), I'm assuming the 'Big Fat' charge is just mean.

The article comments on a news/opinion piece in Reuters that says that much of Buffet's wealth would have been wiped out without the bailouts and that Buffet lobbied for the bailout.

Let's assume that this is true (i.e., Buffet profited from a bailout for which he lobbied. Where did Buffet ever say that he would never lobby or that no one should lobby? Without that, all one can say is that Buffet did what many, many others do (i.e. lobby for their own interests). Perhaps the writer making the hypocrisy charge thinks Buffet poses as a pure and innocent guy. Perhaps so. However, the case wasn't made.

Signing Hypocrisy?

During the campaign, then candidate Barack Obama had as his position that he would let the public have a fair view of proposed legislation before signing it. This was known as the sunshine pledge. Below is the pledge:

So, as it turns out this pledge has been broken. Is it hypocrisy? In a formal sense it is although it is of almost no importance. In addition, it is also evidence of the fact that the Obama campaign really didn't understand the legislative process in much detail.

Some people may wonder why it is so hard to post legislation for 5 days before signing it. Unfortunately, I have some experience in this matter. As it turns out, many bills are a convoluted mess when they are voted on. In a lot of cases the 'bill' exists as a combination of several printed documents together with handwritten notes. This occurs even as late as the signing. Many times, it takes the Library of Congress a few weeks before they have a readable bill.

So, yes, the Obama-Biden team is hypocritical but it is a very minor thing.

Here is a post about the late June retreat on the pledge from Volokh conspiracy, a law blog
Here is a post about the July abandonment of the pledge from the same blog.
Here is a post where a blogger identifies the 40 bills that President Obama has signed and calculates that the campaign promise was met in, at most one bill.
Here is the Obama-Biden website with the sunshine promise

Biden vs. Palin Hypocrisy??

VP Biden and Gov Palin have both said similar things about Israel vs Iran and the US. But TPM poster M.J. Rosenburg (who is also a director of the Israel Policy Forum, a 'two-state' advocacy group), and Matthew Yglesias, propriator of "Think Progress", a self described progressive website, have different reactions to Biden and Palin.

Basically, both Rosenburg and Matt Y. call Palin 'stupid' for saying something similar (in 2008) to what Biden said (in 2009). They might be able to claim the situation has changed but, if that is the case, doesn't it make Palin something of a prophet (in any case their Biden comments did not refer, or link back, to their Palin comments)?

So are they hypocrites? It seems to me that they are, although a better description would be that they are partisen hacks. As for the degree of hypocrisy I'd rank it pretty low since they are just repeating what other partisen hacks have said. On the other hand, both the TPM and the Think Progress website get a lot of hits so maybe they have a 'spread the word' influence that is more than I suspect.


Here is a transcript (earlier this month) of Biden speaking to George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he's prepared to make matters into his own hands.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.

What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues.

If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?

BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike.

BIDEN: I'm not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests.

and here is the Palin transcript (from a 2008 interview with Katie Couric):

Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, “second guess” Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?
Palin:

We shouldn’t second guess Israel’s security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn’t second guess their efforts.

Couric: You don’t think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?
Palin:

No, abso … we need to express our rights and our concerns and …

Couric: But you said never second guess them.
Palin:

We don’t have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

Here is the the TPM commentator on Biden's comments:

Obama Today: No Green Light to Israel

By M.J. Rosenberg - July 7, 2009, 10:03AM

So much for that.

The President said today that he has "absolutely not" given Israel a "green light" to attack Iran.

So Biden either misspoke, was misinterpreted, or has just been corrected by his boss. Israel will get no green light to attack. We will, as Obama said all along, rely on diplomacy to solve the Iran problem.

Good. But we need to do something. I think the mullahs have demonstrated that they are capable of absolutely anything -- including nuking Israel despite the cost to their own people (about whom they care not at all).

But an Israeli attack would not solve anything; on the contrary it would create the havoc in the Middle East like nothing we've experienced yet (and jeopardize the lives of 120,000 American troops next door).

Obama knows that. And if anyone can unravel this knot, it's him.

Here is the TPM commentator on Palin's comments:

Now we know why among the very first people Sarah Palin sat down with after being nominated was Joe Lieberman and the head of AIPAC.

She needed the latest talking points and, boy, did she learn her lines.

Matt Y on Biden's comment:

This is being read by some, including Marc Lynch, as a “green light” for an Israeli attack. Like Robert Farley I think the most straightforward reading of what Biden said is rather different, he’s trying to distance the United States from any possible Israeli military action by making it clear that what Israel does or doesn’t do is decided in Israel rather than in Washington.

Matt Y on Palin's comment:

Palin is okay at repeating various “pro-Israel” buzzwords, but she can’t run away from the fact that her underlying position on this topic is stupid.


Biden transcript here
Palin transcript here (for the Couric) and (here for the Gibson interview)
Rosenberg on Biden comment here
Rosenberg on Palin comment here
Matt Y on Biden here
Matt Y on Palin here

WaPo Accuses Capital Hill of Hypocrisy on Gitmo


Here is part of a Washington Post Editorial entitled, "Hypocrisy on the [Capitol] Hill"

"FOR YEARS, Democrats clamored for the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using the prison to pummel President George W. Bush for abusing his authority, violating domestic and international law, and tarnishing the reputation of the United States. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) felt so strongly about the issue that she sponsored legislation in 2007 to force Mr. Bush to shutter the facility.

Now lawmakers are making it nearly impossible for President Obama to close the notorious prison by year's end, as he promised to do...."Ms. Feinstein, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and 88 other senators -- including every Republican -- voted to attach to a must-pass, supplemental war spending bill several provisions that tie the president's hands. Ms. Feinstein complained that the president lacked a detailed plan to deal with detainees...."

It seems to me there are two parts to what Congress did.

The first part concerns bringing of detainees into the US. I'll agree here that anyone (Senator, Representative or otherwise) who pre 2009 said, "we must close Gitmo" and now says, "Detainees must not be brought to the US" is a hypocrite. I don't think it is a very serious hypocrisy for reasons I'll get into later.

However, there is another part to this. President Obama has issued an executive order to close the Gitmo detention center but has not submitted a plan for how to do this. It seems to me reasonable to deny an appropriation to close the detention center without such a plan (although, it also seems to me that it would be unreasonable to deny an appropriation to develop such a plan).

With respect to the seriousness of the hypocrisy, I think the WaPo is missing an important point (and I can't find it specifically addressed anywhere). This point is that there is no assurance that Gitmo Detainees brought into the US will not be released by courts. Some people may consider this an unreasonable fear but without some assurance in statute (which the Congress is free to develop but which, IMO, the Administration, specifically DOJ should develop) that the detainees will remain in maximum security, it seems to me a reasonable fear.

The WaPo Editorial is here.

Sarah Palin Threatens Lawsuit

(from an article in CBS news) "Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein on Saturday warned legal action may be taken against bloggers and publications that reprint what he calls fraudulent claims.

"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation," Van Flein said in a statement. "This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law."

This follows an announcement by the FBI that Governor Palin is not under FBI investigation nor has she been under investigation.

The issue of the alleged FBI investigation is apparently the funding of a sports arena in Wasilla, Alaska. That's it in the image.

But, my brother Irwin reports that Palin spoke against frivolous lawsuits in the 2008 campaign (we can't find any specific speech on the subject on the internet but the 2008 Repulican Platform is clearly 'pro-legal reform'). Let's suppose for argument, Palin made general statements such as 'we need to reform laws to discourage frivolous lawsuits.

If that were true, I see no hypocrisy. The Palin attorney who is threatening a lawsuit is only threatening people who spread manifestly untrue matter, and that, on only one issue.

This is the article about the threatened law suit

This is an article noting that Palin is not under FBI investigation.

A list of 3 ethics complaints aginast Palin in 2008. I'm not sure if this is correct, but the people who posted it think Palin is the victim of frivalous lawsuits and complaints.

The 2008 Republican Party statement on "Reforming the Civil Justice System..." is here. I couldn't find any statement on the subject in the 2008 Democratic Platform.

President Obama is a smoker. He signed a cigarette regulation bill. Does that make him a hypocrite?

As near as I can figure, some people actually think this hypocrisy charge is logical.

It is certainly true that Obama smokes cigarettes (he admitted as much in a press conference today). Obama smoked much more frequently when he was in the Illinois legislature (the image is from that period).

It is also certainly true that he signed a cigarette regulation bill.

However, I simply am unable to understand what the hypocrisy is. Obama never said he would not sign a cigarette regulation bill. Obama doesn't maintain that the cigarette regulation bill bans smoking cigarettes (neither would anyone else who understands the meaning of regulation).

This may also be a case where Obama is more aware of the evil of smoking than most people and wants to protect people because of personal experience.

No hypocrisy. Not even close.

Report of Press conference smoking issue is here

A typical accusation of hypocrisy is here

Evan Thomas 2007 and 2009

Here are two transcripts from Mr. Thomas who has been assistant managing editor of Newsweek since 1991 (and is the grandson of Norman Thomas who ran for President a half a dozen times on the Socialist Party of America ticket).

This is from 2007 when George W. Bush was President
---------------------------------------------------

Gordon Peterson: "What do you think, Evan? Are the mainstream media bashing the president unfairly?"

Evan Thomas: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do almost --"

Peterson: "But unfairly?"

Thomas: "Mmmm -- I think when he rebuffed, I think when he just kissed off the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, there was a sense then that he was decoupling himself from public opinion and Congress and the mainstream media, going his own way. At that moment he lost whatever support he had."

-------------------------------------------------------

This is Mr. Thomas in 2009 when Barack H Obama is President.

------------------------

"...I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God...I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."
----------------

Well there are a number of ways of reading this:
1. Thomas is a partisan democrat and the 'bash the President' is the job of Newsweek when a Republican is President
2. Thomas changed his mind from 2007 to 2009
3. Thomas was lying in 2007 and is a hypocrite.

there are more ways of reading this but I don't know enough about Mr. Thomas to distinguish between them.

Wikipedia site on Mr. Thomas is here
2007 Quote from this site
2009 Quote from this site

Are Anti Abortion advocates hypocrites for condemning the murder of George Tiller?

If I understand him correctly, William Saletan, of Slate Webzine, thinks they are. He maintains that people such as Troy Newman, who, in the various publications of Operation Rescue, comes very close to equating the killing of a fetus with the killing of a living person.

From the Saletan opinion piece,

"...Is it wrong to defend the life of an unborn child as you would defend the life of a born child? Because that's the question this murder poses. Peaceful pro-lifers have already tried to prosecute Tiller for doing late-term abortions they claimed were against the law. They failed to convict him. If unborn children are morally equal to born children, then Tiller's assassin has just succeeded where the legal system failed: He has stopped a mass murderer from killing again.

So is Roeder getting support from the nation's leading pro-life groups? Not a bit. They have roundly denounced the murder. The National Right to Life Committee says it opposes "any form of violence to fight the violence of abortion," preferring instead "to work through educational and legislative activities to ensure the right to life for unborn children, people with disabilities and older people." Americans United for Life agrees that it was wrong to kill Tiller because "the foundational right to life that our work is dedicated to extends to everyone...If a doctor in Kansas were butchering hundreds of old or disabled people, and legal authorities failed to intervene, I doubt most members of the National Right to Life Committee would stand by waiting for "educational and legislative activities" to stop him. Somebody would use force...."

There are two problems with Saletan's statement. Saletan is making several assumptions about the anti abortion organizations. First, he says that they equate the value of a fetus with the value of a living person. This is clearly not the case. The anti abortion organizations have placed great emphasis on restricting late term abortion. This seems to show that such groups recognize a continuum of 'humaness'. Second, Saletan says that one organization in particular would not use only "educational and legislative" means to stop a person butchering old people. Actually, there is no record of any anti abortion organizations attempting to use deadly force to close Dr. Kervorkian's clinic nor any record of similar attempts in regard to the few US States that have assisted suicide laws.

No hypocrisy.

Saletan opinion piece here.

Image on the left is the murdered abortion provider, George Tiller.

Lobbying Policy

Here is the Obama-Biden Policy during the transition period (Nov 2008-Jan 2009)

• Federal Lobbyists cannot contribute financially to the transition.
• Federal lobbyists are prohibited from any lobbying during their work with the transition.
• If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied.
• If someone becomes a lobbyist after working on the Transition, they are prohibited from lobbying the Administration for 12 months on matters on which they worked.
• A gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests.

and here is a news story from a 'late in the day on Friday' announcement in a trade journal

May 29, 2009, 6:55 p.m.

The White House moved Friday evening to loosen lobbying restrictions related to stimulus funds, lifting the ban on federal lobbyists communicating with agency officials on specific projects for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds.

I actually sympathize with the May 29 change because without it, agency officials wouldn't know what projects they are supposed to be implementing with the ARRA funds (before I retired there were many times I couldn't figure out what the project was supposed to be because I wasn't allowed to make calls to lobbyists).

So, was it hypocrisy when the original policy was stated or was the Obama-Biden team merely ignorant of the way legislation works. Sadly, I think it was the latter. It would have been better if they were hypocrites but knowledgeable about government.




Obama-Biden Transition website is Here

News on Obama lobbying policy in May 2009 is here.

Polar Bears and the NY Times

Back in October 2008, the New York Times was very worried about Polar Bears. Here is a quote from an editorial (not an op-ed),

"In its closing months, the Bush administration is pulling out all the stops in its eight-year effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act. In mid-August, the administration proposed two dangerous regulatory changes. One would free the government from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on polar bears and other imperiled wildlife...."

and here is a quote from the New York Times in an editorial today,

"Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has upheld a Bush administration finding that the Endangered Species Act is not a suitable tool for restricting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threatening the polar bear and its habitat. We agree, with this codicil: There are steps Mr. Salazar can and must take under the act..."

The 2008 editorial doesn't mention "other steps" and the 2009 editorial doesn't mention that they had a different opinion back in 2008.

Now it is possible that the newspaper had a different person writing the 2008 and 2009 editorials. It is also possible that they had changed their mind or that they gained new understanding of the situation. However, if either of these was the case, the NY Times should have made clear which is was. They most obvious conclusion to make is that the over arching explanation is that the NYTimes is simply a biased organization. It doesn't really care about polar bears, it cares about who is President.

NY Times editorial in Oct 2008
NY Times editorial in May 2009

Follow Up to the Miss California Post

Perez Hilton - Hypocrisy on Fair Use

Subsequent to the events described below in the Miss California post, Perez Hilton demanded that Youtube.com remove a youtube post that had him saying Miss California was a bitch. This was on the basis of copyright infringement.

Perez Hilton is somewhat famous (or infamous) for posting images of celebrities with uncomplimentary features (warning - obscenity if you get to into the details) drawn on the outside of their clothes and claiming 'fair use' of common property.

This is explained in unpleasent detail at:

Perez Hilton puts the 'hippo' in hypocrite.

As it turns out, I don't understand copyright law enough to analyze whether hypocrisy has taken place. It certainly does seem as if Perez Hilton is not a nice person however.

Senator Arlan Specter formerly R-PA, now D-PA


Here is what Arlan Specter said back on March 18 (per the Philadephia newspaper)

"To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket," Specter said in a statement released by his campaign manager.

Here is what Arlan Specter said on April 28 (per the NY Times),

“I’m not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate, not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,”

he also said this,

“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans"

Here is a case where the first statement evidently had a parenthesis that no one knew about. When he said, "... I am running in 2010 as a Republican..." he evidently meant to add "assuming I win the Republican primary which I'm sure I will win". As it turned out, in the 4 weeks between the two statements it became evident to Senator Spector that he would not win the primary (in fact as of the time he made the April 28 statement he was behind by 10 points among self described moderate Republicans in PA. The declaration about political philosophy. I'll give him a break on the hypocrisy charge. I'll also say that based on my discussions with the Pennsylvania DOT, he is, to be kind, a difficult person to deal with. If I was just using the political philosophy statement, it would be so stupid as to be laughable since the Republican philosophy hasn't changed in the month between the statements and no body even alleges this.

Philadelphia Inquirer article
NYTimes article (also the image is from the NYTimes)

Miss California and the Gay Marriage issue

That's Miss California on the left. Her name is Carrie Prejean.

She was asked by the gossip columnist Perez Hilton (who I think is gay) what she thought of gay marriage. Here is what she said,

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

and here is what Perez then said, "The way Miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt! Never before that I'm aware of has a contestant been booed at Miss USA." Later he made a video blog calling her a "..dumb bitch.." and subsequently he removed the video and sort-or-apologized.

Many others in the Gay Community reacted even more strongly.

"It's ugly," said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."

Interestly, here is what then candidate (now President) Obama said on gay marriage,

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

So the question is, given that Miss California and Obama have approximately the same position on gay marriage (Miss California seems to actually be more 'pro' gay marriage and more nuanced than Obama), why isn't the gay community criticizing Obama.

I think the answer is that they assume Obama was disingenuous when he gave his position. They assume he actually wants to legalize gay marriage and will do what he can to get that done but that he has to oppose gay marriage to be elected. More simply put, they assume he is a hypocrite (I do not know whether they are correct on this and don't have a good guess).


Sources:
here
here
here
here
here

Armenian Genocide:
Obama Finds A Loophole

The image is from a collection of photos taken in the early part of the 1900s in Turkey/Armenia in a collection. The caption on this reads, "Turkish hangmen and their victims in Aleppo, 1915". Many of the other images at this site are far, far more gruesome.

The Washington Post today reported on President Obama's remarks while visiting Turkey. While a Senator, Obama signed a letter (as did then Senator Biden and then Senator Clinton) calling on then President Bush to recognize the Armenian massacres of the early 19th century as a genocide. He had on several occasions made the recognition of this genocide part of his presidential campaign. On this trip to Turkey, he did not mention the word "genocide" and was had among other things to say this,

"...'while there's been a good deal of commentary about my views, it's really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past."

Unfortunately that phrasing makes the victims and the victimizers equal.

Notwithstanding this all, the interesting thing from a technical study of "hypocrisy" is that, based on my definition, Obama can only be charged with hypocrisy for what he says or does, not for what he doesn't say or doesn't do. In effect, he found a loophole in my definition. Thus he would be innocent of the charge of hypocrisy on this issue (although perhaps guilty of 'hedging' or being 'dodgy' or being 'morally corrupt' or something along this line).

By the way, the Obama-Biden campaign post on this issue, has the following< " As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago [in 2006], I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."


April 24 is Armenian Remembrance Day in the US. Perhaps I will post script something then if I can decide if there is a general response to this 'dodginess' by the Armenian-American community.

Postscript April 24: The Armenian Weekly had an article quoting the President of the Armenian National Committee of America. He said,

“I join with all Armenian Americans in voicing our sharp disappointment with President Obama’s failure to honor his solemn pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

In falling short of his repeated and crystal clear promises, which reflected a thorough knowledge of the facts, the practical implications, and the profound moral dimension of Armenian Genocide recognition, the President chose, as a matter of policy, to allow our nation’s stand against genocide to remain a hostage to Turkey’s threats.

The President’s statement today represents a retreat from his pledge and a setback to the vital change he promised to bring about in how America confronts the crime of genocide.

Genocide must be confronted unconditionally at the level of American values and our common humanity. As Americans, we should never allow the prevention or recognition of this crime to be reduced to a political issue that can be traded away, retreated from under pressure, or used to advance a political agenda, of any kind."

Republicans and Filibustering Hypocrisy

Dahlia Lithwick, a liberal columnists at Slate has a longish article there entitled, "How many ways can Senate Republicans Show Breathless Hypocrisy".

Part of the article is on the issue of filibustering in the Senate. Part of the article is on the issue of claiming that the nominee hasn't been forthcoming on answers.

The second issue is impossible to address because I would need to do a legitimate statistical analysis of questions before nominees by party by type of nominee, etc.

The first issue is, at least at first take, easier to understand. The Lithwick hypothesis is that some Republicans accused Democrats of unethically (or unconstitutionally) filibustering judicial nominees and now Republicans threaten to filibuster judicial nominees.

This would be a reasonable hypothesis but for the fact that: Lithwick does not identify a single Republican who made that claim (she cites a newspaper article in the LATimes which says that both sides are changing their filibustering tactics). Similarly, she doesn't say the Republicans have filibustered anyone (they haven't) and she doesn't identify a single Senator who says he (or she) will filibuster.

I'm presuming that Lithwick is not so lazy or stupid as to be incapable of these citations. Thus I'm going to conclude she just likes the word 'hypocrisy' and the phrase 'breathless hypocrisy" (and they she herself is blinded by ideology).

The Imus Apology; The Obama Apology

Then Senator Obama wanted Don Imus (radio and TV commentator) fired for a comment that members of a women's basket team were "nappy headed hos". This was several days after Imus had apologized. Imus was eventually fired and after about a year he was rehired (Imus and Obama on the left).

A few days ago on the Jay Leno show, President Obama compared his own bowling ability to a "special olympics" level. Obama apologized. Nobody that I can find is calling for Obama's resignation or any punishment at all. The special olympics committee seems to have accepted Obama's apology.

Is Obama a hypocrite for not resigning when he called for Imus's firing over a similar insulting comment.

Well, one defense that Obama could make was that in his comment, Obma was making fun of Obama. Imus was making fun of other people. Its not a strong defense but probably is enough to avoid the hypocrite label.

Still there is a double standard here and what's more interesting is that none of the big media people pointed out Obama call for firing Imus during the 'special olympics' apology. In addition, given the way Obama is briefed and the way he prepares for interviews, there is a strong chance the 'special olympics' comment was pre-scripted.


A Politico report on Obama's special olympic comment is here.

An ABC report (from 2007) on the Obama call for firing Imus is here.

Below is the timeline for the 2007 events courtesy of blackjusticeblog:

4/4/07 Imus says "nappy headed hos."
4/6/07 Imus apologizes.
4/7/07 Sharpton calls for Imus to be fired.
4/11/07 The Boston Globe writes a piece about Obama's silence on the issue thus far. Sharpton, who has not endorsed any Presidential candidate, is interviewed.
4/11/07 Obama is interviewed by ABC and is the first presidential candidate to demand Imus' firing.
4/11/07 Obama appears on Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room. He condemns Imus without mentioning rap (subsequently he condemned both Imus and rap music).
4/11/07 Imus is fired from MSNBC.
4/12/07 Imus is fired from CBS.

Service Employees International Union is anti Union

As reported in an article in today's Washington Post, the SEIU (their logo is in the image) is engaged in a labor dispute with the Union representing its own workers. This Union hasfiled charges with the National Labor Relations Board.

As explained in the article,

"...The Service Employees International Union... has notified the union that represents about 220 of its national field staff and organizers that 75 of them are being laid off. In return, the workers' union, which goes by the somewhat postmodern name of the Union of Union Representatives, has filed unfair labor practices charges against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board. The staff union's leaders say that SEIU is engaging in the same kind of practices that some businesses use -- laying off workers without proper notice, contracting out work to temp firms, banning union activities and reclassifying workers to reduce union numbers.

"It's completely hypocritical," said staff union President Malcolm Harris...

SEIU officials say the layoffs are part of a long-running plan to reallocate resources...."

I'm not familiar enough with the actual policy of the SEIU and the actual facts of the layoffs, contracting out, etc. to say whether this is a case of hypocrisy. But it is amusing.

Hypocrisy Contest

Over at Deceiver Madness they have a tournament, modeled on the NCAA Division I Basketball tournament.

People can go to the site and vote for winners of Hypocrisy runoffs.

The image to the left was done after the first round of winners.

I'm not going to comment on their definition of hypocrisy because they don't define it. They simply state that there is hypocrisy. Personally, I don't think the fact bear them out.

However, I like the idea of a contest done in this playoff format.