Campaign Ads.

President Bush has placed a campaign add that strongly implies the Recession began when he first took office. This is almost certainly not hypocrisy because even though current impartial analysis indicates that it began in March 2001 (still could be adjusted), Bush almost certainly believes that the recession was underway in Jan 2001. In any event, its hair splitting. Bush also, in a speech (not an ad), said Kerry introduced a bill to cut the CIA's budget by $1.5 billion; that this would have weakened the agency; and, that the cuts were so egregious that no one even in the Democratic party would co sponser this. This is certainly misleading since at the time the CIA was underspending its budget in one area by $1.5 billion over a 5 year period and Kerry's bill would, essentially have simply taken away unspent funds. The reason no one supported it is that another Democrat had a Republican co sponsor to adjust the budget in a different (more flexible and thus more acceptable to the CIA) way. This probably doesn't reach the hypocrisy threshold only because Bush probably wasn't told all the facts by his staff. If, however, I'm wrong and Bush was told the facts, it would count as hypocrisy since Kerry was not 'weakening the CIA' and Bush would have known it.

Hypocrisys to keep watching.

Senator John Edwards dropped out of the running for the Democratic nomination. Senator Edwards had been running on an anti free trade platform. I doubt that Senator Edwards actually believed the non sense he was spouting about NAFTA since the mill jobs he prattled on about were being lost long before NAFTA. I never analyzed his hypocrisy.

Senator Kerry has a more nuanced hypocrisy on trade. He voted for NAFTA and GATT but says the Bush administration didn't take the environmental and labor standards provisions seriously. Actually, President Bush has been less free trade than Clinton (steel tarriffs, sugar quotas, mohair subsidies; personnally I think Bush was wrong on these). No one can produce a single anti NAFTA comment by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration. The New York Times produced a delightful comment about Senator Kerry which said that the reason Kerry seems to contradict himself and give convoluted answers is because of nuance (I'm not linking to this because the NY Times comment is drivel). However, on the Trade issue, given that Kerry has legitimate economic advisers it must be obvious to him that his position on trade is hypocritical. At last, a fairly obvious example.

Now lets take same sex marriage. President Bush had been against a constitutional amendment but now is for such an amendment but hasn't any suggested language. This is almost certainly hypocrisy since Bush knows that the exact language is vitally important. Senator Kerry voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act because he said then that it was unconstitutional. He claims now to think the Act is constitutional and is against a US Constitutional amendment that uses language similar to the 1996 Act. He was asked about this by a reporter. The answer was so incoherent that it is unclear just what Senator Kerry believes. However, the gay community believes strongly that when Kerry says 'I am against gay marriage' that he really believes, "I am for gay marriage, I just can't say that so instead I'll oppose a constitutional amendment'. That is, the gay community is for Kerry because of his hypocrisy. Cool.

TNR defends Kerry against the charge of hypocrisy

In this article:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040301&s=trb030104

The New Republic writer Peter Beinart defends Senator John Kerry against the charge of being a hypocrite.

As with typical articles in this magazine, it is a very literate, very detailed defense. However, nowhere in the article is there a statement of who is charging Kerry with being a hypocrite. The republicans, evidently released a commercial (I've not seen it) which charges Kerry with being unprincipled because Kerry has taken a lot of special interest money. Unprincipled does not equal hypocritical. TNR also uses some clever typology definitions of special interests. They define some of the special interests that donated funds to Kerry as 'less special' than the special interests that donated to President Bush. They also make the interesting comparison that special interests gave more money to Bush than to Kerry. This is logically irrelevent. It doesn't make me less of a hypocrite just because someone else is a hypocrite.

Sometime earlier, the Washington Post listed Kerry positions on foreign intervention. They did so at this site:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040301&s=trb030104

The Washington Post noted that Kerry had been against the first Gulf War, then for the Bosnia action, then for the 2nd gulf war, then criticized it, then supported it, then opposed funding it. The Washington Post never accused Kerry of hypocrisy nor did they point out that Kerry may conveniently believe whatever he thinks will be popular in his State of Massachusetts. The latter effect isn't hypocrisy, its just weak mindedness.

The Media Chasing of Bush and Laying off of Kerry
At the website:

http://www.hughhewitt.com/index.htm#postid273

A radio host (Hug Hewitt) and columnist (generally a conservative) charges the media with hypocrisy. His argument was that big media went after Bush on the National Guard AWOL charges with everything they had but laid off the Kerry-Intern charge and that because there was no factual support for either, this constitutes hypocrisy.

I'm not so sure. Mr. Hewitt is persuasive in saying that big media gave disparate treatment to the two situations. However, the Kerry-Intern charges were only a few days old at the time. More importantly, Mr. Hewitt claims that big media is biased against Bush. The charge of bias actually is a defense of sorts against the charge of hypocrisy. The reason is that if big media believe that Bush should be smeared, they are doing exactly what they believe in. Actually, the hypocrisy is something else, that is the big media pretending to be neutral when they are not.

CBS/MTV shows the breast superbowl halftime ever

Yesterday, during halftime of the superbowl, Janet Jackson's breast was exposed. Today, CBS, MTV (the producing company) and the performers involved are saying it was unplanned.
see: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040201/nysu032_1.html

and
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484738/20040201/jackson_janet.jhtml?headlines=true

it is obvious that the Ms Jackson's wardrobe was specifically designed to show the breast and she wore a pasty on the nipple which is not typical regularwear. In addition the pregame announcement promised a shocking surprize.
see: http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:fdY9BmfrFS0J:www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484644/20040128/jackson_janet.jhtml%3Fheadlines%3Dtrue+janet+jackson+shocking+moments&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8
Conclusion - hypocrisy but the level is minimal. Ms Jackson has shown her breasts (both) before, granted that this was during prime time and children were watching but, really, these are entertainers - they are supposed to entertain and these entertainers aren't that bright either. No one should expect them to be guardians of morality.

Kerry calls the Pot Black

The Washington Post had a devestating and detailed article on the record of Senator Kerry regarding the taking of funds from lobbyists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64727-2004Jan30.html

Apparently, the Senator, who intends his presidential campaign (assuming nomination) to be against the special interests, has taken more funds from lobbyists than any other Senator in the past 15 years (since records have been collected).

He can defend against the charge of hypocrisy only by saying that he will attack the special interests irrespective of the fact that they have given him money. This, however, brings up the charge of hypocrisy in his dealings with individual special interests who must have been lead to believe that Kerry's Senatorial work would, in some way help him. Of course whatever discussions took place would be unknown and not publically discoverable.

Michael Moore endorses Clark

I've done a number of posts on the hypocrisy of General Wesley Clark. Now one of his supporters has a hypocrisy problem of his own. Michael Moore, movie maker and noted extreme leftist has endorsed Clark. As Slate notes, at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094210/ , the Michel Moore movie "bowling for Columbine" has harsh criticism of the US actions in the balkens in the late 90s. These actions were led by General Wesley Clark. Michael Moore has just endorsed Clark. Apparently, Moore says that 'well thats all in the past' or words to that effect. I doubt whether Moore actually believes that so either he was pretending to critize the Balken efforts back then or he is lying now. This is an interesting case also because Moore's endorsement of Clark probably hurts Clark more than it helps him.

More on Wesley Clark

A Slate reporter has been following General Clark in New Hampshire.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093825/

Apparently, Clark continues to say things that seem crazy, for example that President Bush didn't try to get Osama Bin Laden. It seems impossible to imagine that Clark really believes in such things. This makes it an open and shut case of hypocrisy. I was trying to think well of Clark but he is preventing me from doing this. Arrrgh.

More on Governor Dean's changing Relationship with God

A New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/politics/campaigns/04DEAN.html

Gives a cynical view of Governor Dean's new relationship with God. The article doesn't come out and accuse Dean of faking an interest in religion but implies it. One amusing note was that Dean was asked his favorite book of the New Testament, answered "Job" and it took an hour before he realized (no doubt one of his aides helped him) that Job isn't in the NT. By the end of the article it is obvious that when Dean says, "Religion is a big part of my life" he doesn't mean it. So the hypocrisy charge that I dismissed a few days ago is reinstated.

Howard Dean's Relationship with God

It now is well known that Former Governor Howard Dean quit one Christian denomination and joined another because of a problem with his old Church's position on a bike path. It is also well known that he doesn't attend church services. It is also well known that he has said he doesn't want to let the Republicans talk about Guns, God and Gays in the south. The New Republic had an article basically saying that his position would lead to electoral defeat in the south. A few days later, Dean said he believes in God and would talk about God when he campaigned in the south. Is this hypocrisy.

What specifically is the hypocrisy? Does Dean not believe in God while saying he believes in God? or more likely, does Dean think southerners who believe in God aren't very bright but avoids saying this to avoid offending them? I think the latter is more likely and if so, it is a case of hypocrisy by silence which is not formally hypocrisy the way I defined it.

The Washington Post style section today has a story from a reporter following the Dean campaign in S Carolina at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48313-2004Jan1.html

The story mentions the religion issue. The story also indicates that Dean is not 'resonating' in S Carolina and he is not bible thumping either. So even if it were hypocrisy it would be minimal and minimally important.

Nuclear Weapons for the US but not for N Korea - Am I a hypocrite?

Well today I was reading a piece by a left wing historian and full professor (I forgot the name or where I read the thing) who blamed the US for the Korean war, for N Korea's poverty, for lots of similar things and I found myself disliking what he said and wondering why a nut like this gets to be a full professor. The fellow went on to say that it was hypocrisy to say that the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea shouldn't.

Well, I think the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea shouldn't.
Am I a hypocrite?
In once sense I certainly am not, I'm not pretending to believe what I don't believe nor to say something I don't believe.
On the other hand, I am certainly being hypocritical. I think that the reason the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea should not is because I think the US is basically good and that N Korea is basically bad. However, I don't think every country that is basically good should have nuclear weapons. Should Costa Rico have nuclear weapons? Should the Fuji Islands? Should Denmark? No. No and No. But this is where it gets complicated. I think a problem with nuclear weapons is that they can be stolen or damaged even in a good country and there is always the chance these countries may go bad. So my hypocrisy is only because I like to maintain the simple good/bad argument even though I recognize there is more complexity than this.

John Bradley does it for the money

LGF posts today about a strange case (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php)

-----------------------------------
A Completely Crime Free Environment

On July 29, 2002, Arab News editor John R. Bradley left this (now famous) comment at LGF:

I’m off for a stroll down Jeddah’s fabulous Corniche, the longest in the world and a kind of open air museum peppered with famous, giant-size sculptures. At dusk the largest fountain in the world bursts into life. Ordinary families settle down to have picnics. Polite smiles and hellos from strangers. A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . . .
Today the Washington Times has a piece about soaring crime rates in Saudi Arabia, and it’s written by ... wait ... that can’t be John R. “Crime Free Environment” Bradley’s byline, can it? Saudis confront soaring crime.

The days when Saudis could leave their homes unlocked, even when they went on vacation, are long gone. Thieves have taken to robbing whole apartments, after brazenly parking a van in the street outside.
----------------------------------------------

LGF speculates that the Arab News may have liked his 'crime free' spin in July when he was working for them and the Washington Times liked his 'crime increasing' spin in December.

This is hypocrisy by omission, which is not actually hypocrisy by the definition I first advanced.

Anti Dean Hypocrisy

Several of the other Democratic candidates have been attacking former Governor Dean for his opposition to the Iraq war. Of these, some had been hedging their own words about the war. As noted before, former General Clark had famously done this. Senator Kerry executed an amazing 24 hour switch. Before Saddam's capture, Kerry attacked Dean for supporting a war resolution that was introduced (but not voted on) while opposing the similer resolution that was voted on - in effect charging Dean with hypocrisy. After the capture, he attacked Dean for opposing the war. Senator Lieberman said that, "if Dean were President, Saddam would still be in power". What Lieberman failed to say was that, since Gore opposed the war, if Lieberman were V President, Saddam would still be in power.

All these may be examples of low grade hypocrisy because politicians don't really have clear ideas and are always changing their mind anyway. A somewhat more serious charge is that when they change their mind, and know that they are changing their mind, they say they are not changing their mind. This has probably led to voters thinking less of politicians which may or may not be a net minus.

The impact of the hypocrisy seems to be pretty low also because Dean is ahead by about the same margin after the Saddam capture as he was before the capture.

NY Times columnist supports hypocrisy

In an opinion piece yesterday

site = http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13/opinion/13BROO.html

A columnist named David Brooks

I'll quote some of it which concerns the US policy regarding gemerally allowing only coalition countries to bid on certain contracts.

----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. administration is confronted with three nations that have stabbed it in the back with alacrity. The German leader vowed not to run a re-election campaign based on anti-Americanism, then turned around and did just that. The French government has done all it could to ensure that the U.S. effort to transform Iraq would fail. Russia was also willing to let the Iraqis rot in their slave state.

The U.S. now has roughly $18 billion to spend on the effort to rebuild Iraq, and it must figure out whether to allow companies from these countries to profit from the effort.

The wise course is obvious. You loudly announce that all is forgiven, that, of course, the companies from the wayward nations will be allowed to bid for contracts. And then behind the scenes you stiff them cold.

This policy is hypocritical, so it is probably the right policy to enact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The end of this is not sarcastic.

I'm not sure whether to take the author seriously however. Is he saying that any hypocritical policy is 'the right policy'? I doubt it. He probably means that he thinks this particular policy would be good.

In any case, at least someone else thinks at least some hypocrisies are necessary.

Gore revisited

The same writer who did the dec 10 article (see below) has an article today that admits that he didn't write what he wanted to (anger got the best of him).

The issue wasn't Gore's endorsement of Dean. The issue was that Gore implied that he wanted everyone to withdraw. The author also admitted that this implied wish was silly and ineffectual (which is to say that whatever hypocrisy exists is minimal).

the new article is at:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092400/

Is Gore a hypocrite?

In an article on the Dec 10, 2003 Slate magazine

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092275/

Will Saletan accuses former VP Al Gore of hypocrisy.

He uses several quotes from Gore during the 2000 election about how we should let all the votes count. He then notes that Gore's endorsement was specifically done to narrow the field and allow a Democratic party candidate to emerge quickly (before a single primary or caucus).

So is this really hypocrisy?

I don't think so. VP Gore is the nominal head of the democratic party. Doesn't he have the right to endorse a candidate? In fact, doesn't he have the duty to endorse a candidate if he thinks it right to do so?

This is not to say that he made the right decision. This is not to say that some candidates may drop out before the first primary/caucus. But so what? There will be still be primaries. People will be able to vote. Gore's action may (and may not) make some votes less important but it won't prevent people who want to vote from voting.

Not guilty.

Some Nice Things About Wesley Clark

I realized today that quite a few posts have been critical of General Wesley Clark. The fact that General Clark has played with giggly certain hypocrisy should not detract from the fact that he has many good qualities. He is obviously a hard worker, obviously has a high energy level, obviously has a high intelligence and obviously was very loyal to the Army. It is also possible that in the Kosovo conflict he steered the Clinton Administration into a stronger military role than it would otherwise have had, thus saving lives of Kosovars (Albright's book and Clark's book seem to agree on this but disagree on the magnitude of Clark's influence).

On the other hand, it is known that many other high ranking officers disliked General Clark as did his CO (General Sheldon) and the Secretary of Defense (Secretary Cohen). The basis for this dislike is not completely clear.

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.

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/

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.