Senator Obama and Reverend Wright

One of the posters on Democratic Underground has made the case that Senator Obama (on the left) is a hypocrite with respect to Obama's support of the Reverend Wright,

The specific charge is well stated,

"...You can't publicly preach "unity" and getting beyond race with a "post-racial politics" (and present yourself as the only available vehicle to lead us to this promised land) and then in private endorse for two decades someone (Rev. Jeremiah Wright on the right of the picture) who couldn't be more diametrically opposed to Obama's public rhetoric."

Senator Obama's statement in response to this charge (actually it is a response to the general situation - I'm pretty sure Senator Obama didn't read this particular comment) is essentially the church attender equivalent of the moron defense, that is, "I didn't know the Revered Wright was saying this stuff."

If you assume the moron defense isn't true, it makes Senator Obama a hypocrite in the sense that a lot of politicians are hypocrites. This, in my opinion, may make Senator Obama a better person and maybe a better potential candidate because he is forcing himself to come to terms with the specifics of Reverend Wright's sermons, (e.g., America is bad, America invented the AIDs virus, whites all hate blacks, etc.).

Incidentally the odds that Obama is a hypocrite here is strengthened by another incident, namely the visit which an economic adviser to Obama made to the Canadian consulate in Chicago and allegedly told the Canadians that Obama didn't really mean the anti NAFTA comments he (Obama) made before the Ohio primary.

Senator Obama's response to the controversy was reproduced on the Huffington Post. The response was probably because of mainstream media reports such as one on ABC news.

Here is some of the response in which he denounces "the statements, without noting which they are",

"... Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

and here is the moron defense,

"...the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn. The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

Governor Elliot Spitzer:

He Prosecuted Prostitution Rings; Now He's Caught in One

Naturally, some people are accusing Governor Spitzer (I think he is soon to be ex Governor Spitzer) of being a hypocrite.

One such accusation is at a blog called "Protein Wisdom". Dan Collins, the author of the blog accuses, Spitzer of being, "Mr. American Hypocrite".

Here is what the blog post says,

"... he previously prosecuted — quite aggressively and publicly – several citizens for the “crime” of operating an adult prostitution business. That hypocrisy precludes me from having any real personal sympathy for Spitzer, and no reasonable person could defend him from charges of rank hypocrisy. And he should be treated no differently — no better and no worse — than the average citizen whom law enforcement catches hiring prostitutes. (in the original the underline was a hot link to a political cartoon)"

OK. So what specifically makes Spitzer a hypocrite.

Did he ever say, "No one should ever use prostitutes".

Did he ever say, "No one should ever assist in the transportation of prostitutes across a State Line"

Did he ever say, "No one should ever intentionally transfer funds with the intent of disguising the source of the funds."

Maybe, but Dan Collins gives no example.

What Dan perhaps means is that Spitzer engaged in egregious moral posturing while Attorney General of NY State and now it has been demonstrated that he is culpable of immoral activity.

If so, that would be classified as a lowish level of hypocrisy as it self corrects assuming Spitzer will no doubt resign and leave government in disgrace.

In the image, the Governor's wife is on the left, the Governor on the right. The image was taken at a press conference where the Governor admitted an ambiguous wrong doing and declined to take any questions.

;

Bias or Hypocrisy

Dennis Boyles thinks it is the latter. Here is a section from an article he did for the online version of the National Review (NRO).

"...The problem at the Times isn’t bias, which is always acceptable. It’s hypocrisy. The Times claims to represent a set of journalistic ideals. But their daily practices show a blatant, if situational disregard for the standards of their profession..."

The background is pretty complicated. The New York Times did an article about Senator (and presumptive Republican Presidential nominee) John McCain. The article (which is about 3000 words long and I haven't read it), mentions a series of events in 1999 in which McCain was in the company of a lobbyist for the TV company Univision. The lobbyist is much younger than McCain and, at least in 1999, was very pretty (and bears some resemblance to Mrs McCain). The ombudsman (Clark Hoyt) for the NY Times considered the article to be unfairly implicating McCain in a romantic affair. The ombudsman stated in a front page critique (also published in the NY Times) that the article should not have been published because it was inadequately sourced, that is, there was no evidence whatsoever of a romantic relationship. Mr. Boyle thinks the problem isn't a journalistic mistake but that the deliberate agenda of the NY Times is to hurt conservatives and republicans and promote liberals and democrats and furthermore than the ombudsman knows this, or should know it. Now if Mr. Boyle does think that the NY Times ombudsman is biased against Republicans and is trying to pretend that this bias does not exist, that would be hypocrisy. However, Boyle has no way to see into Mr. Hoyt's mind. Thus, I think the NRO should have adopted an "assuming..." point. The NRO did give some evidence that the NY Times is biased, namely that a previous ombudsman said that it was a liberal paper. However, this does not demonstrate very much about Mr. Hoyt. Charge unproved. Here is the URL for Boyle's article:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTRhYTlhYTAxNWJjMjZiNTZjNzNiMDQzZjFmOTAxNWE=

and as a follow up, a robopoll (the Rasmussen company uses computers to call and take input) shows, "...By a 50% to 18% margin, liberal voters have a favorable opinion of the paper. By a 69% to 9%, conservative voters offer an unfavorable view. The newspaper earns favorable reviews from 44% of Democrats, 9% of Republicans, and 17% of those not affiliated with either major political story...."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/24_have_favorable_opinion_of_new_york_times

Jailbird Wants to Pray - Hypocrisy is the charge

A blogger in Baltimore, who is also attending law school as well as blogging and trying to be a practicing orthodox Jew, has posted an entry accusing either an individual or possibly a group of people as hypocrites. The only case he cites is that of an orthodox Jew convicted of major fraud who is suing the State Corrections Department for refusing to accommodate his request for an appropriate place to pray. The convict apparently maintains that he is unable to pray from his cell because there is a toilet in it rendering the location unsuitable for Jewish prayer under Jewish religious law. The poster does not dispute the fact that the understanding of the convict regarding Jewish law is correct. Instead he mocks the request of the convict with an accusation of hypocrisy.

Here is his accusation of hypocrisy:

"...I fail to understand how these people can be so Machmir in all aspects of life, but when it comes to money, they feel that they can do whatever they please. TAXES?! Who pays taxes? To a Goyishe government!? The hypocrisy in which these people live their lives is astonishing.

I would like to believe that Hashem doesn't as readily accept the prayers of people who live their lives seeped in such hypocrisy as he does mine and yours...."

This hypocrisy accusation, like so many others, doesn't specify exactly what actions (or statements) are associated with hypocrisy. Even worse, in this case, the charge of hypocrisy seems to be made against an undefined group ("these people") .

If I were being generous, I would guess that the accuser meant to say that people who adopt a highly public 'holier than thou' persona are hypocrites when they commit highly public, egregious and substantial crimes. If this is the case, it would be a case of hypocrisy but only to the annoying or minimally dangerous level (as I defined those levels back on August 31, 2003).

However, if I were being less generous, I would have to say this is an example of poor thinking. A reasonable way of interpreting the accusation is to think the accuser meant that persons who wish to be rigorously correct in their ritual practice must be completely law abiding in their civic affairs. Now, here is the problem. I doubt that anyone, other than perhaps babies and nursing home patients is completely law abiding. I estimate that more than 99% of everyone who drives disobeys the 'come to a complete stop at a stop sign' rule. I estimate a similar percentage of people who regularly go for a walk, violate the litter law at some time. Similarly huge percentages of people use a pen from the office at home, etc. Would such civil crimes merit the charge of hypocrisy if they were performed by persons who were otherwise rigorously correct in their ritual practice. I'm betting the accuser would not make the hypocrisy charge in this case.

Perhaps the thought of someone else being a hypocrite is so strong that it turns the brain of otherwise clear thinking persons into mush.

The blog of the Baltimore law student is:
http://alanlaz.blogspot.com/

The Baltimore law student's post for Feb 18, 2008 refers to an article two days earlier in the New York Times. This article is at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/16prison.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1203337704-hUa5prXK2zW6M82ORqRa3A&oref=slogin

Did he really think it was a nice hat.

Here is a trivial case of hypocrisy, assuming it really was hypocrisy.

Today, a US Congressman complimented me on my hat. If he didn't mean it, it was just a trivial case, like asking "how are you?". when you don't actually want to know.

here is the entry from the Weiss Chronicle Blog

Thursday, December 06, 2007

"Nice Hat." said the Congressman

Today I was briefing a Congressman on something. In the introductory smalltalk I noted that I had never been in an office with a stuffed warthog (he had not just a stuffed warthog but a stuffed bear, a stuffed lion and about 6 stuffed deer, ibex, etc. After my brief I was putting on my coat and hat (which were needed because today was really, really cold with snow on the ground) and the Congressman said, "Nice Hat" (I was wearing the one that is felt and you can fold and bend it).

So on the way home I noted to the people that I was with that this was the first time I ever got a compliment from a Congressman about my hat.

"and you think its sincere?" asked one of the people.

I responded that I had a hard time believing a US Congressman thinks its worthwhile to use insincere compliments to win a favor from a mid level bureaucrat.

Was Maimonides a Hypocrite (in the "Letter to Yemen")

I take a class on Monday evenings. This evening we were studying the Letter (a.k.a., Epistle) to Yemen. It addresses the same overarching problem as one Maimonides wrote earlier which has come to be called the "Letter on Martyrdom". In the Martyrdom letter, the Jews of N. Africa were being oppressed and forced to convert to Islam by a Sunni sect. In the Yemen letter, the Jews of Yemen were being oppressed and forced to covert to Islam by a Shiite sect. In the former case, Maimonides address the issue of whether martyrdom is required religiously. In the latter case, he addresses the religious and theological significance of the oppression.

In the Yemen letter he states at one point that the oppression yields the benefit of removing from Judaism, those who are either not pious or not pure descendants of the revelation at Sinai. This sounds unkind, (even a bit like a Lord Vodermort speech), to our modern sensibility.

I guess that most of the class and maybe most people who've read this believe that Maimonides was making a pastoral (or polemic) point and didn't really believe it. The goal would have been to comfort the people in Yemen.

If so, this is hypocrisy. However, it is the good kind.

Roy Nagin - Vote advocate but non Voter

New Orleans has a mayor named Roy Nagin whose administration has been criticized by the people of New Orleans for, among other things, corruption and incompetence immediately before, during and after Hurricane Katrina's landfall in southern Louisiana (2005).

New Orleans had an primary election on October 20, 2007. Turnout was low (about 20%) and Mayor Nagin stated,

"It was kind of offensive to me, because here I am busting my butt every day and all I'm asking citizens to do is to plug into the democratic process....Take 20 minutes of your time (refering to the general election on Nov 17) and decide...Don't just let this thing happen without you voicing your opinion."

It appears that Nagin did not vote in the Oct 20 primary (nor in district voting in March and May of 2007). As of now, it was not possible to determine whether Nagin had voted in the Nov 17 election but the total turnout actually fell from the 26% number in the primary to 20%.

If it turns out that Nagin did not vote in the Nov 17 election, he is definitely a hypocrite but it is proably not a very important piece of hypocrisy since apparently the voters are already on to him.

The Times Picayune article on this is at:

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1196145686303810.xml&coll=1

Columnist vs Columnist

A Columnist for the Washington Post (E.J.Dionne) called Mark Steyn (also a columnist but not for the Washington Post) a "meanie and hypocrite" (actually I think they are both syndicated columnists).

Steyn accepts the 'meanie' but rejects the hypocrite label.

This has to do with discussion of the case of the Frost family of Baltimore. One of the 4 Frost children (age 12) read a rebuttal to President Bush on the issue of some legislation extending government paid health care to wealthier families than currently are eligible.

The details on the legislation are pretty arcane; however, the Frost family is currently ineligible for these health care benefits but would (I'm presuming) be eligible under the legislation.

Several bloggers soon pointed out that the Frost family owns 3 vehicles (a sedan and van and a pick up truck), two properties and a business and somehow is able to afford to send some (possibly all four) children to private school.

Dionne thinks (as I understand it), that because Republicans (or right wingers) are generally in favor of tax payer reimbursed religious or charter school or private school education, criticizing the Frost family for wanting the govt to pick up it's health care bill is hypocrisy.

Obviously, Dionne is using very sloppy logic (and no substantive fact finding) here.

First, he somehow assumes that all Republicans (or right wingers) think the same on these issues. That's obviously false. If you accuse an individual of hypocrisy of belief, you have to look at what they believe rather than what there political party believes.

Second, he somehow confuses the issue of govt subsidy for private/charter/religious school for govt subsidy for a specific type of health care. If an individual supports the former, it, in no way requires the individual to support the latter. In fact, Steyn does not support govt subsidy of the type the Frosts are seeking for himself (Steyn has no policy on it that I can tell). This is similar to the other blogger Dionne specifically names.

No hypocrisy here; just journalistic sloppiness.

I will not be addressing the 'meaness' issue.

The Washington Post column by Dionne is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101101601.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The response by Steyn is at:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjJhYjdlMGI5MWNkMWQwMTEwZjVhNmI0MmFiY2ZlZjg=

A response by another person (Michelle Maukin) criticised by Dionne is at:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/

The Rolling Stones Accused Neo Cons of Hypocrisy (I think)

Here are the lyrics to the 2005 song "Sweet Neo Con" (from the title one might think it was praise):


"You call yourself a Christian I think that you're a hypocrite You say you are a patriot I think that you're a crock of shit

And listen now, the gasoline I drink it every day But it's getting very pricey And who is going to pay How come you're so wrong My sweet neo con....

Yeah It's liberty for all 'Cause democracy's our style Unless you are against us Then it's prison without trial

But one thing that is certain Life is good at Haliburton If you're really so astute You should invest at Brown & Root....

Yeah How come you're so wrong My sweet neo con If you turn out right I'll eat my hat tonight Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah....

It's getting very scary Yes, I'm frightened out of my wits There's bombers in my bedroom Yeah and it's giving me the shits

We must have lots more bases To protect us from our foes Who needs these foolish friendships We're going it alone How come you're so wrong.

My sweet neo con Where's the money gone In the Pentagon Yeah ha ha ha Yeah, well, well Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."

I'm almost completely missing this. Is one individual being accused or is it a corporate accusation. If it is a corporate accusation (the song mentions Halliburton and Brown and Root (the latter was, at the time of the song, a subsidiary of the former), it seems silly because, first, a fair number of neo cons are either Jewish, or aetheist or are Christian without identifying with Christianity. In fact, I am having a difficult time thinking of any individual who is a self identified Christian who is also a neocon.

The lyrics were from the website:

http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/536089.html

If no Fritos for thee, then maybe none for me

I owe a thanks to the WSJournal Opinion Journal for pointing me to a story from the greater Salt Lake City area.

It seems that students had been restricted in the amount and type of junk food allowed to be purchased in the school. In a decision, apparently motivated, at least partly, by the consideration of hypocrisy, teachers also had their access to junk food from faculty room vending machines severely restricted.

The article is at:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695208261,00.html

In a sense, those teachers who would restrict student access to vending machine snacks but would not restrict teacher access to those same snacks are guilty of a hypocrisy. But I would regard this as the hypocrisy you need to get through the day.

There are clearly some things to which access to minors must be restricted as a matter of policy. Minors must not be allowed to buy alcohol or vote because that is the law and the law is based on a thought that minors can't handle the type of decisionmaking involved. Whether this thought is correct or not is besides the point.

Additionally, the WSJ discussion of this article points out that teachers may assign homework to students but not the other way around.

The WSJ site is the Sept 10, 2007 edition of:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

Edwards - Again and another Sexual Immorality Case

Former Senator Edwards is reported to have said that the US should fight global warming by people giving up SUV's (I don't have a direct quote - the news reports have a paraphrase). Back on Feb 2, 2007, I examined the case of the 28,000 square foot house recently constructed for John Edwards (it sits on a 100+ acre estate). That was in connection with the fact that the Edwards campaign was based on rallying the poor against their rich exploiters. This is sufficiently similar that I'll not examine it again.

Also, back on Aug 20, I looked again at the case of a family-values politico who was accused of sexual immorality. A similar charge (and guilty plea) has occurred against another family values politico, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). Again, this is sufficiently similar that I'll not examine it in depth. I will say that conservative columnist Ann Coulter (whose work I generally do not read), did make this issue the subject of a column. I found her analysis on this basically sound although it is a bit difficult to get to the analysis because it is surrounded by polemic (which I suppose is what draws readers). She commented, "Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."

The cop's report of the Lewd (or disorderly) conduct charge against Senator Craig is at:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

The report of the SUV comment is at:

http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.nc/22b7034c-www.wlos.com.shtml

and a nice picture of the Edwards estate with several SUVs parked in one of the 4 parking areas on the estate at:

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u128/sapguy_us/EdwardsHome.jpg

The Coulter column is at: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi and is dated Sept 5, 2007 and titled, "Cruising While Republican".

Parsing Hypocrisy on Sexual Immorality

Steve Landsburg, an economic professor, writing at Slate.com (an online journal now owned by the Washington Post but once owned by Microsoft) has an post with the title "Parsing Hypocrisy".

He has started down approximately the same path as this blog with an attempt to clearly define hypocrisy. The twist in his definition is that it is down from an economics viewpoint.

He takes the case of a Florida legislator who was caught doing something illegal and sexually immoral. This same legislator sponsored legislation making it easier to convict people of lewd and lascivious behaviour.

Professor Landsburg, has (as have I) considerable trouble determining whether or not this is hypocrisy because he isn't sure of the motive of the individual.

Landsburg's blog is:

http://www.slate.com/id/2172282/fr/flyout

For what it is worth, I have covered this approximate issue before (in Oct 2006 with respect to former US representative Mark Foley). In that case I made the point that perhaps Foley (who verbally solicited homoerotic activity with pages while coauthoring legislation to expand the criminalization of child pornography) was acting from the knowledge that he himself was enticed by homoeroticism and wanted to help others resist the temptation.

Post Script

On Aug 21, I wrote to Dr. Landsburg telling him I was commenting on his article on this blog and telling him about the Oct 2006 post regarding US Rep Foley.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:11:44 -0400 (EDT)

I received this message.

"Steven E. Landsburg" wrote:

Thanks for sharing your blog post on hypocrisy. You make a good
point, and you make it well.


SL

More From Laurie David (Greenhouse Gas Hypocrisy)

I discussed this a bit on April 23.

At that time, I was not entirely sure whether Laurie David (or Sheryl Crow) believed in carbon offsets as a legitimate way of compensating for egregious consumption of energy intensive products and services, most egregiously of all the private jet travel (obviously the resulting carbon dioxide is substantial).

Apparently, the Guardian did an article on Laurie David (dated in the fall of 2006 but seeming to begin in 2004 - I can't figure out the date of any actual interviews - although the article seems based on an interview or maybe several interviews).

In this Guardian article (which is sympathetic to Ms David), she doesn't mention purchasing offsets. Instead at one point in the interview,

"...She has been dubbed a Gulfstream liberal for flying occasionally in a private jet, and castigated for her second home on Martha's Vineyard. "It's so easy to marginalise people," she says in self-defence. "Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year, and I feel horribly guilty about it. I probably shouldn't do it. But the truth is, I'm not perfect. This is not about perfection. I don't expect anybody else to be perfect either. That's what hurts the environmental movement - holding people to a standard they cannot meet. That just pushes people away.""

So apparently whether or not she buys offsets, she has some feeling that the offset is not adequate compensation for the carbon dioxide emissions of her private jet (or 2nd home or the extra emissions because her first home is so gigantic).

Instead, she defends (I'm not entirely sure she means this as a defense - clearly the author of the Guardian article considers it so) herself by saying people shouldn't expect her to be perfect. That would seem to be reasonable except I don't think people expect that at all. I assume that at least some people simply expect her to reduce her emissions to, say, only about 4 or 5 times the average for Americans instead of the 50-100 times they are now (I don't have an audit, I'm guessing here).

Anyway the Guardian article is at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/18/weekendmagazine.usnews

John Edwards and the money from Murdoch

Roger Simon, a very popular blogger, calls former Senator Edwards a Hypocritonissimo. He does this because, in edition to the large house issue (see Feb 2007 post on this site), Edwards has been critical of other candidates for accepting campaign donations from Rupper Murdoch while himself taking funds from Murdoch as part of a book publishing deal.

The Roger Simon link is:

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/08/hypocritonissim.php

and the story Roger Simon was commenting on was from a NY Post story in which Edwards states that part of the funds (reimbursement for expenses) he took from Murdoch ($300k) were provided to charity (although declining to provide records to back the assertion). Edwards does not claim that the $800k he received for royalties was provided to charities. In contrast to this, Edwards criticized Senator Clinton for receiving $20k in campaign contributions.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm


Senator Edwards also claimed (a few weeks ago) that he accepted a job (about $800k as a rainmaker) with a Hedge Fund to learn more about poverty.

As I noted before, I have a difficult time commenting on this because Sen Edwards makes my flesh crawl.

I will say I don't know why Simon should say that whatever hypocrisy Edwards is guilty of is dangerous. People have been using the poverty issue for their own ego feeding or for scams for many years.

Senator Vitter, Larry Flynt and Madame Palfrey

Rick Moran, a sometimes columnist (he lives in Illinois, has written a good bit and is generally identified with Republicans), has an essay online entitled, "hypocrisy all around".

It is about the facts concerning a escort/prostitution business operated by Madame Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Relevant undisputed facts:

Palfrey admits that some of her 30 or so employees (all women, one a college professor) engaged in sex for money (it is unknown which women did sex for money and which did not)

One of the clients of the business was Senator David Vitter (R- LA). Senator Vitter has acknowledged wrongdoing (but not criminal wrongdoing) and confessed to his wife and God. Senator Vitter is an advocate of family values, an opponent of homosexual marriate and an opponent of sex before marriage (presumably also a opponent of sex outside of marriage).

Larry Flynt, editor of Hustler (a magazine which not only has nudity but pictures violent, S&M and B&D sexual acts) has offered money to people willing to expose politicians and has said he will expose appropriate individuals (since Mr. Flynt is known to be a partisen Democrat), people assume he will expose only Republicans).

So Senator Vitter has done something he has told others not to do. Does this make him a hypocrite? My answer is Yes (although there is a contrarian view of hypocrisy that says that this is only a case of personel weakness). Assuming it is hypocrisy is it a big deal. I would say, No (I assume the sex here is consentual). Senator Vitter is away from home a great deal and, no doubt, has desires typical of someone his age and health.

Is Larry Flynt a hypocrite (for exposing people he disagrees with for doing things he doesn't disagree with)? This is pretty complex but I think Flynt here is not specifically saying Vitter shouldn't have sex outside of marriage (or thinking it). Flynt's actions are sleazy and disgusting but not, as I understand the term, hypocritical (although Moran thinks so).

Moran's article is at:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/hypocrisy_all_around.php

Rock Groups accuses earth-aid Rock concert of Hypocrisy

The Rock Group "Arctic Monkeys" stepped into the Global Warming debate, with among other things the following:

"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.

"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"

As it turns out, the organizers of the Earth-Aid concert are going to buy carbon offsets after calculating their carbon footprint.

All this and more at:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705025637.vyh5u7g0&show_article=1

Hillary on the Libby Sentence Commutation

Senator Hillary Clinton issued this statement from her official "Hillary for President" website:

7/2/2007
Statement of Hillary Clinton on Libby Commutation
Senator Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:
"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."

This website is:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2271

This statement brings up the issue of what Hillary said when her Husband was issuing pardons.

There were a lot of pardons (a pardon is a stronger measure than a commutation of sentence).

The official list of pardons is on the US Dept of Justice Website:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Here is what Marc Rich was pardoned for (in 2001 just before leaving office):

Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701

and here is what the Gregories (husband and wife members of the Puerto Rican Terrorist group FALN - there were others in the group) were pardoned for (march 15, 2000):

Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, etc.

Hillary did not denounce most of her husband's pardons (in fact at the time there was suspicion that these pardons were a form of vote buying since the Puerto Rican vote is substantial in NY and Hillary was running for Senate in NY at the time. She did, specifically endorse the FALN pardons, although the NYTimes (and others, including some who are criticizing the Libby commutation) defended these pardons at the time see:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DD143DF93AA3575AC0A96F958260

So let's run through the possibilities:

1 - Hillary didn't have an opinion of the Clinton Pardons, does now but isnt' saying
2 - Hillary favored the Clinton Pardons (at least the FALN ones, even if she says now she didn't and even if at the time she issued mealy mouth comments on those pardons) and still does but isn't saying
3 - Hillary was against the Clinton Pardons but didn't say so then
4 - Hillary was for the Clinton Pardons but isn't anymore

So many posibilities.

I personally think #2 is correct and if so, she is guilty of hypocrisy in that she thinks political pardons are OK but says otherwise (unless you posit that political pardons of Puerto Rican terrorists is OK but commuting the sentence of Republican perjurers isn't - an interesting argument would have to be made). One could hope some reporter will ask the appropriate hard questions but probably Hillary won't allow such questions so we will never know - alas since I personally think it is important to know whether a Presidential candidate thinks the FALN pardons are OK.

This same argument could be made in much less stark form for Sen Edwards and Sen Obama. Edwards was elected Senator from NC in 1994 so he was new to the job during the Clinton pardons. Obama was just a State Senator in 2000 and wasn't elected to the US Senate until 2004.

Barbara Walters Felt Tawdry - I wanted to vomit

Barbara Walters got a phone interview with Paris Hilton from the LA County jail. She almost landed the first post release interview with Ms Hilton (she had questions sketched out). But CNN and Larry King got the interview, somehow Barbara decided that it was Tawdry.

There is an amazing bit of self justification that Barbara goes through. She claims it wasn't Tawdry until the 'pay for interview' discussion, then it became tawdry and according to Barbara the folks at ABC didn't get outbid by CNN; no, they discovered journalism standards and furthermore it was because of Barbara.

Because I believe Ms Walters is lying, I will classify her as a hypocrite on this. She says she felt the Hilton interview was tawdry, she really is just jealous of Larry King.

FWIW, I think King is an awful interviewer; he has no willingness to construct a tough question and he has no ability to ask a follow up question; Walters may be a better interviewer; however she makes me want to vomit.

BTW, as explained by the LA TIMES, the networks do not pay directly for interviews, instead they give license fees, residuals, options on discounts at luxury hotels, etc. In that way, the networks can proudly say, "We do not pay for interviews."

This would be a case of hypocrisy also, but actually its closer to weaseling.

As posted on:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/walters_calls_idea_of_paris_interview_tawdry_61721.aspa

and

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-parismillion,0,7909619.story?coll=la-home-entertainment

DiCaprio defends

Apparently the charge of hypocrisy has registered in Hollywood. In an appearance promoting a new environmentalist documentary, Leonardo DiCaprio stated that he takes commercial flights as often as possible and implied that his fellow Hollywood environmentalist types are doing the best they can personnally to reduce their carbon footprint.

I don't have the fact available to evaluate this, e.g., information on electrical consumption at the constellation of DiCaprio properties, gasoline consumption in DiCaprio owned vehicles, number and nature of private jet flights. I suspect that DiCaprio is still producing dozens of times more carbon dioxide emissions than the US per capita average but can't prove it.

The article with the DiCaprio defense is:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070519184436.x9vgvtk2&show_article=1

More Celebrity CO2 emissions

Apparently Laurie David and Sheryl Crow are on tour promoting a 'fight global warming'.

Reports from around the blogosphere are that they both have, uh... issues here.

For example, at one site,

" ... Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" and global warming activist, told Texas A&M students to change their "individual behavior" in order to consume fewer resources and to help battle global warming. As an employee of Easterwood Airport, I would like to point out that Mrs. David flew to our campus in a luxurious private jet, which could be seen from 10 miles away due to the thick plume of smog it left in its wake. I am neither denying nor confirming the epidemic of global warming, I am simply pointing out that hypocrites such as Mrs. David don't care about the environment, only their own political agendas. This is proven time and again by these celebrities' and lobbyist's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. Richard PawlikClass of 2007:

This site is:

http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2007/04/12/MailCall/Laurie.David.Is.A.Hypocrite-2837056.shtml

there is more on Ms David (she also made a 'minimize bathroom tissue' effort) at:

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest51.html

What will be more famous however is the 'minimize bathroom tissue' writings of Sheryl Crow. Ms. Crow has called for a 1-square policy on bathroon tissue.

The Yahoo report is at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6583067.stm

Ms. Crow also seems to require 6 cars, 3 trackter trailers and 4 busses when she tours. This is based on the definitive work of "The Smoking Gun" at:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/scrow/scrow1.html

Whether this is a case of hypocrisy depends on whether you accept the greenhouse offset (I'm presuming that both Ms. David and Ms. Crow buy them).