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

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).

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.

The Road to 9-11 vs. Farenheit 9-11: 2nd Post

Well, "The Road to 9-11" did show on TV. Some scenes were cut but some of the very scenes that Clinton Administration officials complained about were left in.

The movie disparaged both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration but more so the former as they were in office for 8 years and the Bush Administration was just getting started at the time of the 9-11 atrocities. No Bush Administration people complained.

The problem with analyzing hypocrisy here is that I'm not sure which former Clinton Administration people defended Farenheit 9-11 and which didn't. I suppose this could be a matter of research but I don't have time to do it.

Somepeople have said that the Democratic Party as a whole condemned "The Road..." but embraced "Farenheit...". While the latter of these may be reasonable, after all Michael Moore did get an honored seat at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I can find no evidence of the former.

Thus, not having time for the research, I'm going to have to pass on this issue.

However, the fact that a number of Democratic Senators threatened ABC with license suspension in the "The Road... " case is truly disgusting.

The Road to 9-11 vs. Farenheit 9-11

ABC is, as of today, scheduled to air a docudrama about the period leading up to the 9-11 atrocities. The docudrama uses various public reports as background as well as additional material. It compresses the timeline, merges characters, etc. much as other docudramas (e.g., the Great Escape). Numerous officials who served in the Clinton Administration (notably Madelaine Albright, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton himself), have either asked ABC to cancel the docudrama, change the docudrama, etc.

I don't remember anyone in the Democratic Party asking Michael Moore to cancel or change his docudrama (which self classified itself as a documentary) "Farenheit 9-11".

"The Road to 9-11" hasn't aired yet. I'll wait to pass judgement until then. As of now, it is still an open issue.

However, there are a few differences between the two events right off the bat.

Farenheit 9-11 was made by a company that did not use the federally regulated airwaves. Farenheit 9-11 did not have a disclaimer (indeed, it claimed to be a documentary). Michael Moore sat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention; however, Mr. Carter is not among the Democrats criticizing "The Road to 9-11".

Gunter Grass - social critic, novelist, Nobel Prize Winner (1999-Literature) ex- Waffen SS recruit

Gunter Grass has stated that he was drafted into the Waffen SS at the age of 17 (in 1944).

There is some doubt as to whether the Waffen SS actually drafted recruits and Grass is planning an autobiographic that may cast some additional light on this (Grass was captured by the 3rd infantry division and told them he was a member of a Panzer division).

The interesting thing here is to what extent, if any, Grass is a hypocrite given his social criticism (from a left wing position). Grass criticized all rightist policies in W. Germany (including the annexation of E. Germany). He avoided all criticism of the Soviet Union, E. Germany and the Stassi except as he compared them to the West (they were less bad in his opinion.

One of the amusing things Grass did was criticise former President Reagan for visiting the Bitburg cemetary and for implying that many German's served the Reich unwillingly.

Grass's current claim of being drafted into the Waffen SS seems to be ironic in this regard as is all his anti Western social criticism.

Assuming Grass is correct in this it is also a slam dunk piece of hypocrisy. We'll have to wait and see (we may never know) whether Grass's "I was drafted into the Waffen SS" is true.

As an interesting by-the-way, Salman Rushdie is defending Grass (who is evidently a friend of his see:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1852419,00.html
)

Star Jones vs Barb Walters: Qui es muy Hipócrita?

I saw a film clip of Ms. Walters last night saying, essentially, that Star Jones Reynolds (who was in fact fired from the View) should have left with dignity by finding another job and pretending to be moving up.

Here is an excerpt from People Magazine:

...she [Walters] felt "betrayed" by Reynolds's... "My [Reynolds] contract was not renewed for the tenth season...I feel like I was fired." Reynolds added that she got the news her contract wouldn't be renewed [about 90 days before the 'betray' comment]... Walters elaborated on the controversy: "We didn’t expect her to make this statement yesterday. She gave us no warning." Walters then went on to explain that Reynolds had known "for months" that she would not be returning in the fall, and that the network had given her time to exit the show with "dignity."... I[Walters said to her [Reynolds], "Handle this any way you want. You can say anything about a new job, you can say anything about a new road. Whatever you say, we'll back you up. We will never say that your contract was not renewed.'"

This is essentially Walters advising Ms Reynolds to be a hypocrite (or a liar) and being condescending about it at the same time.

Of course, Star is accusing Ms. Walters of hypocrisy but in truth Ms. Walters was sincere in advising Star to lie because Walters apparently believes that, in show biz, maybe elsewhere, lying is OK.

In short, this is a cat fight; not a hypocrisy fight (although Ms Walters makes me want to vomit).

Popsuger has a brief post on the Star vs Walters fight with a huge number of informed comments following it at: http://popsugar.com/8484

The People article is at: http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1208160,00.html?cid=recirc-top5-1-1208160

Pro-turtle, ecofriendly - self proclaimed hypocrite

A man named Michael Martino lives in Florida. He has a specialty license plate that reads "Helping Sea Turtles Survive". He has had two homes destroyed by hurricane (Ivan in 2004, Dennis in 2005). He supports sand dredging by the US Army Corps of Engineers to protect his home (and others) from another storm but it is mating season, or soon will be, for turtles.

The full article is at:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/26/State/Endangered_turtles_th.shtml

Actually, the USCOE takes a number of steps to avoid or minimize damage to turtles, but, of course can not guarantee a 'no-turtle-killed' outcome.

Mr. Martino may have another reason to not want to kill turtles. If a mating turtle is killed and the USCOE observes it, the USCOE will have to suspend the dredging.

From the article, I'm not sure what Mr. Martino's actual motivation is. However, the fact that he likes sea turtles and the fact he wants his home protected at some risk to sea turtles (although I think a rather minimal risk) are not inconsistent. He may simply like his home more than sea turtles.

If so, one may ask, why not have a bumper sticker that says, "I love my home."

The reason is that most people love their home. The message would be insipid.

I'm afraid I don't have nearly enough information to support Mr. Martino's claim to hypocrisy.

Radiohead's Thom Yorke: self proclaimed hypocrite

The band "Radiohead" has performed at some environmental events and one of its members, Thom Yorke, is an environmental activists.

In an article at:

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/yorke%20im%20an%20environmental%20hypocrite_1000208

Yorke proclaims himself a hypocrite, "...The whole apparatus of big festivals is not cool. If we could go to them and say, you can only use paper cups, you can't use generators, you have to use solar panels.... You technically can't make it happen. That stresses me out, because I am a hypocrite. As we all are."

I have a bit of a trouble understanding this because I'm not entirely sure what Mr. Yorke actually advocates. I'll assume for argument's sake that he advocates less consumption of fossil fuel. Assume also that Radiohead flys from venue to venue via corporate jet which renders him consuming fossi fuel at far greater than the normal per capita rate. If so, then he clearly is a hypocrite.

Oddly however, he think paper cups are environmentally benign. Apparently he doesn't understand that trees have to be cut down, processed, etc. and the cups transported to the venue. Thus, I would say his hypocrisy is mitigated somewhat by his ignorance and doesn't rise to a high harm.

Redefining Hypocrisy - What's that all about?

There was a opinion piece in a webzine, entitled, "Redefining HypocrisyReason No. 366 why people don’t take Congress seriously."

The URL for the opinion piece is at the bottom of this post.

In the piece, the author accuses Congress of being hypocritical with respect to the issue of the FBI search of the congressional office of U.S. Representative Jefferson (D-LA). This search took place about 9 months after a search of the home of Rep Jefferson resulted in the discovery of $90k in $100 bills wrapped in plastic and stored in the freezer (definitely cold cash). This was the first such search of a Congressional office in 100 years (probably longer).

The author (named Bryan Cunningham, who is a practising attorney in Colorado but who worked for the Clinton administration as assistant counsel to the CIA), has a pretty involved argument but it boils down to this:

1. Congress claims that the Executive Branch is preventing Congress from doing its job (i.e., violating the separation of powers doctrine) by having Rep Jefferson's office searched.

2. Congress is preventing the Executive Branch from doing its job by challenging the NSA monitoring of phone calls between US numbers and terrorist numbers overseas.

Thus hypocrisy.

The first part of the argument (#1 above) seems fairly solid.
The second part is quite a stretch. In fact, Congress (or at least some members) would certainly argue that their action re; the NSA searches is preventing the executive branch from doing thing that aren't its job. Now that arguement may be flawed, but it would seem it is none the less clearly believed by at least some in Congress.

Thus #2 is not certain and hypocrisy is not proved.

I'm not sure what the phrase 'redefined' means in the title.

source of article at:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU2NDdiNDk3NzQzYTc2NGQ4OTA3N2VkNGI0MGZiZjY=

Blogger hypocrisy in currency advertisements?

An amusing thing happened to one of the authors of the Powerline blog.

Their url is: http://powerlineblog.com/

In the information for May 16, 2006, one of the authors, John Hinderaker reports that he was critized by the authors of a blog called, Blogcritics, whose url is: http://blogcritics.org.

One post on blogcritics posts at: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/16/124639.php

has a paragraph saying

"...So the question remains, what are John Hinderaker and Co. doing pimping a currency scam [investing in Iraqi diner] on their website? I'm aware that blogads are automated to a degree, but the gentlemen at Power Line are ultimately responsible for what they're hawking "

Well actually, the blogads are almost completely automated. So automated that the same 'invest in Iraqi diner' ad that appeared on the powerline blog also appears in the blogcritics post which criticises the powerline blog. Powerline saved a screenshot on their May 16 post.

by the way, one of the 'invest in Iraqi diner' ads takes you to this url: http://www.safedinar.com/?campaign=google&source=google_CM&kw=iraq_dinar_exchange_rate


Now to the question, 'is this hypocrisy on the part of the blogcritics'?

Well the threshold question is whether the blogcritics poster was actually so ignorant that he didn't understand blogads. This seems improbable given the subtitle on the blogcritic home page says that it is:

A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, technology, and politics.

On the other hand, if the poster is that ignorant, the subtitle is the hypocritical piece.

So regarding hypocrisy; guilty as charged.

On the level of the hypocrisy, it must be considered as minimal because anyone ignorant of blogads gets educated pretty quickly. In fact, the blogcritics have, to an extent, already inflicted considerable damage on whatever credibility they had before the Iraqi diner incident.

Hillary is accused of Hypocrisy

The headline for a day of letters to the editor of the NY Post reads, "Clinton's Gen. Y Charge: Six Figure Hypocrisy

The article is at: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/68534.htm

I pretty sure the NY Post is interpreting the letter writers as accusing Hillary of hypocrisy. However, I'm not at all sure I know what the hypocrisy is. Two things are sure, Hillary said something at a college commencement speech about kids not willing to work hard or something like that. Another thing that is sure is that Chelsea works at a management firm and earns over $100k.

We don't know whether Chelsea works hard or not.

What I also don't know is what Chelsea has to do with 'kids not willing to work hard'. Chelsea isn't a kid - she is a grown up, almost 30.

Unfortunately, this is yet another case where I can't figure out what the hypocrisy is supposed to be, never mind analyzing it to see if it is true.

Tilting at Hypocrisy Windmills

It turns out that a lot of loudly pro environment Senators, etc. are against a windpower development at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801188.html

There is also the charge of hypocrisy being leveled against both U.S. Senators from Massachusetts (Kerry and Kennedy) since both Senators oppose the development.

Now, it may be that the reasons given for opposing the windpower development 8 miles off the Massachusetts coast are difficult to fathom (pun intended), for example the claim that it would hurt tourism to Nantucket. It may even be that Kerry and Kennedy don't believe their own claims (which would be hypocrisy).

However, neither Kerry nor Kennedy ever said, "I favor all windpower developments everywhere." Unless they have uttered a remark like this, the charge of hypocrisy merely for opposing the windpower development falls well short of being correct according to our definition.

Disturbing Picture raises Interesting Point

Today, there was an image of some Indonesians(presumably Muslims) burning an issue of Playboy magazine, while apparently staring at the centerfold. Scary yes but is it hypocrisy?

This may be another systematic class of exception to the general rule of "if you say to do something and don't want to do it yourself, then you are a hypocrite".

Images at:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/playboy-magazine-smash-in-indonesia.html

Incidentally, the images in the Indonesian version of Playboy were relatively tame (no nudity) and, in fact, less revealing than pictures widely available from Indonesian sources. Let's let that pass.

The question is are the people burning the issues of Playboy saying something that they don't believe or are they saying to do something they don't do.

Well certainly we can eliminate the second case because they are apparently saying, "burn Playboy" and they are actually burning Playboy.

The more interesting aspect is whether they secretly believe that Playboy should not be burned but are doing it anyway. If so, the normal answer would be that they are hypocrites but here maybe they are doing the burning under a type of religious coersion. If so, that is scary but probably should get a pass at being called hypocrisy.

Cher once sang a song, which, in the Chorus demonstrates a type of what might be called religious hypocrisy.

The song was called "Gypsies, Tramps and Fleas"

I was born in the wagon of a travelling show My momma used to dance for the money they'd throw Poppa would do whatever he could Preach a little gospel Sell a couple bottles of doctor good

Gypsies tramps and thieves
We'd hear it from the people of the town
They'd call us Gypsies tramps and thieves
But every night all the men would come around
And lay their money down

Picked up a boy just south of Mobile Gave him a ride filled him with a hot meal I was sixteen he was twenty one Rode with us to Memphis And poppa woulda shot him if he knew what he'd done

Gypsies tramps and thieves
We'd hear it from the people of the town
They'd call us Gypsies tramps and thieves
But every night all the men would come around
And lay their money down

Yip! Yahoo! She was born in the wagon of a travelling show Her momma had to dance for the money they'd throw Grandpa'd do whatever he could Preach a little gospel Sell a couple bottles of doctor good

Gypsies tramps and thieves
We'd hear it from the people of the town
They'd call us Gypsies tramps and thieves
But every night all the men would come around
And lay their money down

Chapter 63 of the Quran

Virtually every english translation of the Quran titles chapter 63 as "The Hypocrites".

This site gives about a half dozen translations: http://www.geocities.com/infoquran/

Here is one translation by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, 1930

----------------
THE HYPOCRITES, CHAPTER NO. 063In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.063.001 When the hypocrites come unto thee (O Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah's messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites indeed are speaking falsely.063.002 They make their faith a pretext so that they may turn (men) from the way of Allah. Verily evil is that which they are wont to do,063.003 That is because they believed, then disbelieved, therefore their hearts are sealed so that they understand not.063.004 And when thou seest them their figures please thee; and if they speak thou givest ear unto their speech. (They are) as though they were blocks of wood in striped cloaks. They deem every shout to be against them. They are the enemy, so beware of them. Allah confound them! How they are perverted!063.005 And when it is said unto them: Come! The messenger of Allah will ask forgiveness for you! they avert their faces and thou seest them turning away, disdainful.063.006 Whether thou ask forgiveness for them or ask not forgiveness for them is all one for them; Allah will not forgive them. Lo! Allah guideth not the evil-living folk.063.007 They it is who say: Spend not on behalf of those (who dwell) with Allah's messenger that they may disperse (and go away from you); when Allah's are the treasures of the heavens and the earth; but the hypocrites comprehend not.063.008 They say: Surely, if we return to Al-Madinah the mightier will soon drive out the weaker; when might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers; but the hypocrites know not.063.009 O ye who believe! Let not your wealth nor your children distract you from remembrance of Allah. Those who do so, they are the losers.063.010 And spend of that wherewith We have provided you before death cometh unto one of you and he saith: My Lord! If only thou wouldst reprieve me for a little while, then I would give alms and be among the righteous.063.011 But Allah reprieveth no soul when its term cometh, and Allah is Informed of what ye do.
-------------------------------

Let's ignore the theological problems here (e.g. that Allah only sometimes is informed in verse 11, or that Allah here says in verse 6 'this can't be forgiven' and says elsewhere [e.g. 4-110] that anything can be forgive or that Allah asked Allah to curse them in verse 4, etc.).

Instead let's try to figure out what Allah thinks is hypocrisy. It could be someone who once believed but now does not believe (as verse 3 says) or is could be someone who pretends to believe but does so in order to mislead other believers (as verse 2 says) but where such pretenders are all former believers who no longer believe or they could be people who tried to mislead Muhammad (as verse 1 says) who did so by pretending to believe but who also once believed and no longer do so.

Confused yet?

Like many other portions of the Quran, this section is the subject of extensive commentary and and this section supports many legal rulings.

However, let me summarize a few possibilities.

If the Quran is defining a hypocrite as someone who changes their mind, it is simply a bad definition.

If the Quran is defining a hypocrite as someone who pretends to believe in order to deceive, that would be a decent example of a hypocrite.

From the viewpoint of the Quran, someone trying to deceive Mohammad must have been hypocrisy on a six alarm level.

Political Fundraising Letters - Obvious Hypocrisy
Hillary's Letters - Obnoxious Hypocrisy

Senator Hillary Clinton has been fund raising. Almost every U.S. Senator does this. However, her fundraising is a particularly humorous example of non sensical alarmism.

DailyKos is not amused (I am). His commentary is at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/25/205749/182

DailyKos (aka Mr. Markos Moulitsas) points out that,

-----------------------------
"... the emails are full of alarmist crap like:

The 2006 elections are right around the corner, and the GOP is in full swing to throw everything they can at Hillary. And the worst thing we can do is sit on our hands [...]

Let's not kid ourselves, Hillary is in for a fight. Team Hillary Supporters will enable her to be prepared for whatever they throw at her.

Hillary is in a fight? For 2008, perhaps. But it's absolutely clear that the GOP is not throwing everything at her. In fact, their efforts to find a candidate to challenge Clinton border on pathetic.

Perhaps it's time for her to use some of that fundraising prowess to help out other Democrats? She's got $17 million and no real prospect of being seriously challenged.

If she wants to fundraise for 2008, all the power to her. But she could be honest about it. Pretending to raise this money for a non-existent Senate contest is simply obnoxious."

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

Since Senator Clinton surely realizes that what Kos says is correct and since the letter is obviously alarmist, this is definitely hypocrisy. Since it is surely unnecessary it is also at least level 2. However, the only deleterious effects, other than getting people to contribute to her who can't afford to do so, are minimal (e.g., annoyed left wingers), I don't see it getting to level 3.

Of course Senator Clinton is surely not the only politician who has ever done this. The example above however, is particularly egregious (and amusing to poke fun at).

Another hypocrisy accusation re: the Cartoons

This time it is Mansoor Ijaz, who writes frequently about being an American and a Muslim.

Here is a portion of a recent column:

----------------
"...The first truth is that most Muslim ideologues are hypocrites. What has Osama bin Laden done for the victims of the 2004 tsunami or the shattered families who lost everything in the Pakistani earthquake last year? He did not build one school, offer one loaf of bread or pay for one vaccination. And yet he, not the devout Muslim doctors from California and Iowa who repair broken limbs and lives in the snowy peaks of Kashmir, speaks the loudest for what Muslims allegedly stand for. He has succeeded in presenting himself as the defender of Islam's poor, and the Western media has taken his jihadist message all the way to the bank..."
----------------

I can't find the hypocrisy. In fact I can't even figure out who is being accused of being a hypocrite. Is it some Muslim ideologue that the author knows or some group of them. The author doesn't name them nor does he name their organization. Or is Osama bin Laden the hypocrite. If so, when did Osama say he was going to do something for the victims of the Pakistani earthquake? Mansoor is an articulate fellow and obviously he is disturbed by the cartoon riots and the other failures of the Islamic world. However, he has badly misused the word 'hypocrite'.

The column is viewable at: http://www.latimes.com/news/
opinion/commentary/la-oe-ijaz18feb18,0,6492979.
story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

A Hypocrisy Kerffufle Applebaum vs. captain ed

A number of blogging pages have been posted on a hypocrisy charge by Ann Applebaum.

This is discussed in detail at: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006307.php

The chronology is thus:

Feb 8 Ann Applebaum has column in the Washington Post. She discusses the cartoon hypocrisy. She charges the political left with certain hypocrisies. She charges the right wing blog community with hypocrisy with respect to the Newsweek 'flushed Koran' story; specifically that the RWBcommunity accused Newsweek of insufficient understanding of Moslem sensitivities.

Feb 8 (later in the day), Captain Ed writes that Anne didn't understand history and that the criticism of Newsweek was based on their inaccuracy and their inaccuracy based upon Newsweek's belief in the validity of the charges of terrorist suspects over the military spokespersons.

Feb 10 Anne replies that she was criticizing the RWBcommunity's "Newsweek lied, people died" meme.

Feb 11 Captain Ed writes that Anne didn't cite a single example of someone writing that and that if she had followed the debate at the time she would have realized that although some people may have said, "newsweek lied, people died", that this was an incidental meme and not the main meme.

Cartoon hypocrisy

Several papers, authors, bloggers, etc. have accused the moslem cartoon rioters of hypocrisy because they riot when Mohammad is depicted as a bad guy but are gleeful when Jews and Christians are so depicted.

A quote from a German newspaper is noted in this post:

http://www.natashatynes.org/newswire/2006/02/papers_across_e.html

The weight of evidence suggests that this is not hypocrisy at all. The moslem rioters do not feel that nasty depictions of Jews and Christians are wrong. The rioters clearly feel that Islam should not be criticized but other religions should be. Thus, I don't see the hypocrisy.

There are however two forms of hypocrisy that may be going on.

1. Some media are not publishing the 12 Danish cartoons and saying that they aren't publishing it because they are offensive even though they have published other offensive things. If the people in the media making the claim also know that they have published offensive things in the past, that is hypocrisy. If not, not (but in that case they should shortly find out the truth). Assuming this is hypocrisy it would rise to about the 3 level because when media intentionally use double standards it debases the public debate.

2. Some media say they are not publishing the cartoons because they consider the cartoons offensive when it seems the actual reason is that they are scared that they will be harmed by Islamic mobs. If this is so, it is hypocritical. In this case the hypocrisy would also be about level 3 because the problem of intimidation needs to be vetted.

The Great Google cave-in to the PRC- was it hypocrisy

Up until a month or so ago, Google's corporate slogan was "Don't be Evil." This corporate slogan has been withdrawn contemporaneously with Google's provision of a PRC compatible version that is blocked for certain search terms that the PRC doesn't like.

Here is an article on it:


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1138404334789&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

a section of this article is below:

----------------------------
Internet searches via the Chinese website to be established by Google will be censored by the company itself. They will, therefore, exclude results on such sensitive topics as democratic reform, Taiwanese independence and the banned Falun Gong movement.

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

Google admits that this policy is inconsistent with its corporate ideals but defends its action by noting that Chinese will still be able to search millions of sites that they would otherwise not easily find. Although Google doesn't use this as a defense, the fact is that other search engines affiliated with MSN, Yahoo, etc. also allow a form of search censorship.

I actually find Google's defense somewhat reasonable. It seems to me that it is quite likely a Chinese iternet search might well find acticles on, say, Democracy or Falun Gong by slightly circuitous paths (in fact once they discover Wikipedia, the censorship becomes very difficult for the PRC govt.).

But the reasonableness of Google's defense isn't the question. Hypocrisy is. Here, again, however, if we look closely we find Google has changed its mind as witness its deletion of its old corporate slogan. That is to say, since they've changed their mind, they can't be accused of doing what they say not to do. In addition, the corporate slogan was "Don't do Evil" and they could reasonably say they haven't done evil, they've merely caved in to evil's request which is similar but not exactly the same thing.

BTW, I certainly don't approve of everything Google does and I suspect they do a lot of stuff I don't like but don't even know about.