Hypocrisy and Culpability

Well anyway, that's the title of an opinion piece in The New Republic (a.k.a., TNR, a magazine that is leftist on economic matters and internationalist on foreign matters).

As is usual the opinion piece doesn't specify the hypocrisy (or the culpability), but the gist is that since President Obama aided the rebels in Libya who were in danger of massacre, Obama should do the same for the people of the Nuba mountains who are in more danger. TNR is on strong factual grounds with respect to the relative genocidal nature of Libya's Qaddafi vs Sudan's Omar Al Bashir. The latter has already been involved in genocide in Dafar and south Sudan while the former is merely a run of the mill thug whose has opponents murdered in small groups.

Notwithstanding this, I don't think Obama is guilty of hypocrisy here. In his March 2011 statement on Libya, Obama indicated that the situation was 'special',

"....It's true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country — Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground...."

As the quote implies, Obama sought to make a distinction between the Libyan situation and other situations that would come up. In addition, in the Libyan case, the anti Gadhafi forces had control of a huge contiguous territory and that made the logistics of aiding them much easier (of course, Obama seems to have vastly underestimated the problem in Libya but that is just a mistake, not hypocrisy). Some people have pointed out a cynical difference between the Libyan situation and others. In Libya, a putative massacre would result in lots of gory images and victims who speak English saying 'why didn't you help us?' whereas that is less likely in the Nuba mountains where telecommunications are almost non existent.


The TNR opinion piece is here. A report on the potential for genocide of people in the area of the Nuba mountains is here. Obama's "Responsibility to Act" speech on Libya is here.

The Hypocrisy Defense: Is it Political Suicide

Zombie is a blogger who frequently writes for Pajamas Media. Zombie is conservative and lives in San Francisco. He is mildly famous for documenting the many anti Bush rallies in SF where Bush was compared to Hitler.

Zombie has a post in which he states that the hypocrisy defense (e.g., "at least Weiner is not a hypocrite because he never preached morality) is political suicide for liberals.

The argument zombie makes is one in which he asserts that to use the hypocrisy defense, you have to base it on the premise that you have no fundamental moral values and this is a bad thing politically.

I would argue that a number of liberals have survived 'moral' scandal (e.g., Rep Barney Frank and his relationship with a male stripper, former President Bill Clinton and Monica) and a number of conservatives have also survived scandal (e.g., Senator Vitter and his relationship with a call girl). The empirical evidence doesn't seem decisive one way or another.



Zombie's post is here.

A Slate writer defends Hypocrisy in the case of Representative Anthony Weiner.

Slate is a webzine, once owned by Microsoft, now owned by the Washington Post. Almost all the writers are left of center, some more so.

A Slate writer, one Jessica Dweck, has an article called, "The Case for Tolerating Left-Wing Lotharios" Slate calls it, "In Defense of Sex Double Standards "

My favorite part of Jessica's post is,

"...

Why didn’t this salacious, potentially career-destroying story [referring to the tweet of underwear from Representative Weiner's Twitter account] generate the same insta-circus as “Craigslist Congressman” Chris Lee’s beefcake photos or any one of the many GOP sex scandals over the last several years? It’s due in part to the journalistic torpor of the long holiday weekend, but—let’s be honest—it’s also because he’s an outspoken liberal. And that’s not a bad thing.

Conservatives might cry foul over the double standard in reporting on sex scandals for Democrats and Republicans, but it’s justified..."

Jessica conflates conservatives and Republicans but, nonetheless, her point is semi coherent. She believes that any opposition to any form of abortion is objectively wrong or at least subjectively wrong from the point of women (I'm not sure which it is).

If one believes the former, then being hypocritical is simply a tactic. Of course its not clear if this justifies all hypocrisy or only hypocrisy by women but whichever, this is a refreshing statement by a self identified liberal Democrat.


The Slate piece is here.

More on the War Powers Act

Back in March 2011, I commented on the previous statements of (now President) Obama, (now Secretary of State) Clinton and (now Vice President) Biden when they were US Senators regarding the War Powers Act.

In April 2011 there was a lengthy article in the Harvard National Security Review by Michael J. Glennon. Unlike myself, Mr. Glennon believes the War Powers Act is constitutional (he cites an opinion by the Office of Legal Council in the last days of the Carter Administration among his arguments on that point.

Mr. Glennon is mightily ticked by what he feels are 'empty words' by these former Senators, now members of the executive branch. He adds to this 'they said that back then, they say this now' group former Professor Harold Koh. Mr. Koh is now in the executive branch, a legal adviser to the US State Department.

Mr. Glennon never uses the word 'hypocrisy', for which I give him an 'attaboy'. This is because he looks at the arguments used to distinguish the situation in Libya from earlier cases and proclaims these arguments 'faulty', 'dubious', etc. rather than hypocritical.

Glennon's paper is here.

Requiring Sonograms vs Preventing Unnecessary Medical Procedures

The Florida legislature (the GOP has a majority in both houses) has apparently passed a bill that, with some exceptions would require a woman who intends to have an abortion to first have a sonogram. The Governor (a Republican) apparently intends to sign it. My brother points out that this is a medically unnecessary measure (for the woman intending the abortion). He also points out that, at least at the national level, the GOP wishes (or at least some do) to require national restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits because that threat of the lawsuits incentivise unncecessary medical tests.

Is this hypocrisy?

Well, one of my requirements for hypocrisy could be called the same person requirement. That is, if Smith says 'x' and Jones then does 'not x', it can't be called hypocrisy. As an example, if the Florida legislature does something that a national legislature says not to do, it isn't hypocrisy by my definition.

The other problem here is that the Florida legislature could argue that the sonogram, while not medically necessary for the pregnant woman, is medically necessary for some babbies, that is, those babbies who would be born if the woman sees the sonogram but not otherwise. This is, I think, based on the emotional power of the sonogram to show the human features of a fetus and the theory that the law should, in some degree, protect the rights of the fetus. The legal theory is one that is an iffy matter of opinion but with respect to the emotional power of the sonogram, it seems the evidence is pretty strong. In fact, I didn't use a sonogram as the image for this post as it seemed to me a bit too emotionally strong.

Article of legislative initiative here.

Governor's intent to sign sonogram law here.

Pro-life organization website here. Abortion images are high on their content list but sonogram images are also on the list.

President Obama 2010 vs President Obama 2011

On April 13, 2011 President Obama gave a fiscal policy speech at GWUniversity (image is from that event).

This paragraph is from the speech,

"...One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates...

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves."

This is what Obama said back in 2010 during conciliatory discussions preceding a vote on the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare).

"...And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a series discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized, whatever proposals are put out there, as, well, you know, that's -- the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens; that the other party is doing X, Y, Z."

So is President Obama being a hypocrite (lets ignore the issue of whether the April 13 speech is partisan, dishonest or inaccurate)?

Consider this. If President Obama doesn't want to do anything about entitlements, then characterizing the Republican proposals as being irresponsible is the correct strategy as indicated by his January 2010 remarks. Indeed, in the January 2010 remarks (many made in response to questions, including the extract above), nowhere could I find a statement such as "I will refrain from partisan attacks on my opponents" or "I will not demagogue" or any such similar remark. Granted, one could infer the January 2010 remarks seem to imply that but since it is not explicit, it could be a wrong inference.

No hypocrisy.

Transcript of April 13, 2011 speech here.
Transcript of Jan 2010 speech here.

Mikulski Calls on House Republicans to End Hypocrisy

Rarely do I get a hypocrisy accusation on the website of a sitting US Senator. But this title comes from a post on the website of Senator Barbara Mikulski. What is more, Senator uses the word 'hypocrisy' many times in her post and even defines it. Here is a quote from the post,

"...Mr. President, my colleague has talked about one disease in Washington, but I’m going to talk about another disease that seems to be running rampant over in the House Republican caucus and that is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy. And the reason I say that is that they say one thing and they mean another. They say one thing and they deceive the American public.

The reason I call it “hypocrisy” is this: What they say they want to do, which is reduce government spending, is not what they are doing. Sure, I’m for a government that’s more frugal. I’m for cuts. But I’m not for their cuts. What they propose is reckless and radical. And when they don’t get their own way, they say, ‘Cut it or shut it.’..."

Of course this has one problem in that there is no actual reference or link to any actual statement of the House Republican caucus. This is a bad enough problem and a common one. Mikulski is paraphrasing the caucus which makes it impossible to check it out accurately. But there is a more amusing problem. She says, the House Republican caucus wants to "which is to reduce government spending, is not what they are doing." But then she says, "I'm not for their cuts. What they propose is reckless and radical...". So apparently, the caucus does want to reduce spending but she doesn't like the way they want to do it (and she isn't specific either which is another problem). Thus, Mikulski has changed her definition of hypocrisy just a few sentences after defining it. This is a remarkable case of a misapplication of the term.

Later on in the post, Mikulski makes a point about a possible shutdown of the government.

"... I did that backing Senator Barbara Boxer’s bill, which passed the Senate, that said if there is a shutdown, members of Congress don’t get paid. Now, what did the House Republicans do? They passed a bill that allows Members of Congress and the President to receive retroactive payment. Now, the Senate bill doesn’t do that. So they would be the only ones in shutdown that can come back and pick up their paycheck. You talk about hypocrisy. That’s called bait-and-switch."

This is a more normal example of a misapplication of the word 'hypocrisy'. Mikulski does not say (never mind cite) where the House Republicans said "Representatives and Senators should not be paid in the event of a government shutdown". She doesn't even hint that she has anything like that to bring forward. She simply disagrees with a bill passed by the House.

Mikulski then has another charge of hypocrisy to bring,

"...They want to take away Medicare and turn it into a voucher program, but they sure are happy picking up their government health care. They love to get federally subsidized health care. They want to take away other people’s pension, but they sure like getting their federal employee pensions. I want to put an end to the hypocrisy..."

As I understand her, the hypocrisy is 'proposing vouchers for medicare while participating in an existing non voucher system for employment based health care. This combines two typical misapplications of the term hypocrisy. Medicare is not the same as employment based health care. It might be that vouchers are good for one and not for the other or that vouchers are good for general retirement purposes and some employment but not for other employment or that vouchers would even be good for Government based employment but that it would take time to develop a proposal. The other comparison is between a proposed system and an existing system. One might propose a higher tax on some product or service but until the proposal is passed, one pays the existing rate.

In my opinion, the entire speech shows sloppy thinking (it is also hard to follow as it changes subjects quickly).

Mikulski post is here.

A General Hypocrisy Complaint Against the Left

The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Joe Scarborough. Mr. Scarborough was a congressman during much of the 1990s (and I dealt with his office and it was actually an experience with a good outcome). He is currently the host of an opinion/news program on MSNBC.

The opinion piece is called, "The hypocrisy of the American left".

The general point is that the 'left' criticized Bush and lefts Obama off the hook for doing the same thing and the secondary point is that the 'left' says 'yes' to the Libyan action and 'no' to a Syrian action.

Unfortunately, Scarborough wants to blame an entity called the 'left' without defining it. The only 'left' group that he identifies by name as having policies on both the Bush actions and the Obama actions is "Code Pink". He fails to quote their policy or give a hotlink.

Sorry. The hypocrisy charge is too mushy to evaluate.


The WSJ piece is here. The image was taken from the opinion piece.

Obama and Libya: Is it hypocrisy?

Back in 2007, then Senator Obama said (in response to a question which is also below):

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."

However, a few days ago, now President Obama announced that he had ordered military action against Libya. Within a few days, this action included over a hundred tomahawk missiles and other strikes.

Is Obama a hypocrite?

Frankly, I would say he has instead, in the four years between his "President does not...." statement and the present, changed his mind without telling anyone. I think this because his statement back in 2007 was based on a reading of the War Powers Act which some in Congress (and some law school Professors) think is constitutional but which Presidents typically do not.

The Constitution (article 2, section 2) give the President broad powers. The War Powers Act has a lot of language in it but, as I understand it, probably 90% of the legal scholars in the country think the latter is unconstitutional since it limits a constitutional enumerated power of the President (and does so to empower a the branch of government that passed the act over a Presidential veto back in 1973).

No hypocrisy but Obama should have admitted that he changed his mind on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

Interestingly, then Senator Clinton and then Senator Biden had essentially the same position as then Senator Obama in 2007.

Also interestingly, the Washington Post has an editorial today not only agreeing with Senator Obama's 2011 position and also claiming the two positions are not in conflict (they do this by pretending the 2007 Obama position was about war rather than military action).

The quote of Obama's 2007 remark is here.
Text of Obama's 2011 statement is here.
Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution is here.
War Powers Act information is here.
A site comparing Obama's and HRClinton's 2007 statements on this subject is here.
Biden's 2007 comments on the subject here. Biden's statement is the most definitive (and pompous) of the three.
WaPo editorial here.
Dept of Justice April 1, 2011 Memo (although it is obviously not an April 1 joke) here determining that the Use of Military Force in Libya was legal (yes, it directly contradicts Obama's 2007 position but of course it is the DOJ, not Obama).

The Hypocrisy of Some Intellectuals.

Tariq Alhomayed (shown to the left) is the editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat (The Middle East). This publication comes out in English and Arabic and possibly other languages. It is owned by the Saudi Government and sometimes has opinion pieces by westerners (e.g., David Ignatius of the Washington Post). It is presumed to be read by the upper class in the Arab world.

This is a good example of the word hypocrisy being used just because it sounds good. I can't figure out which intellectuals are being accused of hypocrisy. In fact, in the editorial it actually accuses the street (I think this means the Arab underclass) of hypocrisy, not intellectuals. Of course I also can't figure out what the hypocrisy actually is. The editorial begins by explaining a government funding scandal, then criticizes people who generalize and then discusses a number of other loosely related issues.

The whole thing is so incomprehensible, I can't even analyze it at all.


Here is the editorial.

Obama vs Leakers vs Promise of Openness

The website Politico has a piece today that, while not using the word 'hypocrisy', seems to accuse President Obama of hypocrisy. The piece has the following,

"The Obama administration, which famously pledged to be the most transparent in American history, is pursuing an unexpectedly aggressive legal offensive against federal workers who leak secret information to expose wrongdoing, highlight national security threats or pursue a personal agenda.

In just over two years since President Barack Obama took office, prosecutors have filed criminal charges in five separate cases involving unauthorized distribution of classified national security information to the media....That’s a sharp break from recent history, when the U.S. government brought such cases on three occasions in roughly 40 years."

The campaign promise of openness is, I think, embedded in Obama's, Jan 21, 2009 memo to heads of departments. Here is what I think is the key part of that memo (the Politico piece did not link to a 'promise' so this is the best I could do),

"...All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA...."

However, it should be clear to anyone that when Obama was promising openness, he wasn't giving up the option of prosecuting people who leaked government secrets. FOIA and protection of classified information are simply different topics.

No hypocrisy.

BTW, This is an area in which I've had some experience. I'm not in favor of the presumption of disclosure in FOIA (as Obama proclaimed) because of the burden it places on the government and the fact that it encourages frivolous FOIA requests. I think his memo shows either naivety or deceit. This, however, is irrelevant to the hypocrisy implication of the Politico piece.

Also, I think the claim by Obama supporters circa 2008, that the Bush administration was hiding information, persecuting whistle blowers, etc. was grossly exaggerated and used deceitfully to raise campaign funds (and votes) for Obama. This, is similarly irrelevant to analysis of the Politico piece.

Here is the Politico piece. The image I used is the one in that article.
Here is Obama's Jan 21, 2009 memo on openess.

Mike Huckabee, Natalie Portman and Hypocrisy The DemocraticUnderground (DU) explicitly charged former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee with hypocrisy. The contention is that Huckabee criticized Portman's pregnancy outside of wedlock while taking a forgiving position on Bristol Palin's pregnancy out of wedlock. The DU post says that this is what Huckabee said about the out of wedlock pregnancy of Bristol Palin,
" The way the media went after the daughter is the most shameful thing I’ve ever seen in my life. If anything, it just caused to run to her. Everyone understands that the basis of being a Christian is that everyone has fallen short of God’s ideal. Everyone understands that....We all mess up, the issue is how we respond to it. What she showed us is exactly what we wanted to see in terms of a witness."
A commenter on the DU site provides the following comment that Huckabee made regarding the out of wedlock pregnancy of Jamie Spears (younger sister of Brittany),

" "It's a tragedy when a 16-year-old who is not really prepared for all the responsibilities of adult life is going to be now faced with all the responsibilities of honest-to-goodness adult life. I respect it."

"Apparently, she's going to have the child and I think that is the right decision, a good decision, and I respect that and appreciate it. I hope it is not an encouragement to other 16-year-olds who think that is the best course of action."

"But at the same time I'm not going to condem her. There'll be plenty of people in line to do that and I always look for the shortest lines. I just hope that she will make another right decision and that's to give that child all the love and kindness and care that she can."
The DU gives what seems a link to Huckabee's comment about Portman but the link is broken. However, I found the following at a DC area Fox News site,


"You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie."

"Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job," he continued, "and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing."

"You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock, 61 percent of Hispanic kids — across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering."

I don't see this as a criticism of Portman but of the imaging of a pregnant Portman sans spouse as glamorous. However, some people took it to mean that Huckabee said that Portman should not have attended the Hollywood Event. Huckabee must have heard or seen this and posted the following on his own Huckabee Political Action Committee site,

"However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not "slam" or "attack" Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hard-working single mothers in our country. My comments were about the statistical reality that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death. That's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that society often glorifies and glamorizes the idea of having children out of wedlock."
Certainly I would agree that the thrust of Huckabee's comments about Bristol Palin and Jamie Spears is different that the thrust of his comment about Portman. However, neither Palin nor the younger Spears was dressed in evening wear attending the Oscars. Huckabee could also have said that since Palin was 19 and Spears 17 when they became pregnant outside of marriage, Portman was 29. Portman also had a college degree (she got a degree in 2003 majoring in Psychology from Harvard U) at the time she became pregnant. Clearly the two younger women are a different case although one could have sympathy for Portman based on her (Portman's) hypothetical biological clock fears. However, this is small potatoes given the fact that Huckabee specifically said he did not mean to criticize her.
No hypocrisy.
Btw, I worked with Huckabee's office in 2006 when I was chairing an international conference in Little Rock, Arkansas (he was Governor then). I found his office to be incompetent. They gave me incorrect information several times and couldn't meet their own self established deadlines for giving me a response on several items.

Btw, Bristol Palin is part of what I consider to be one of the most astoundingly stupid conspiracy theories of all time. It comes from Andrew Sullivan, who was with The Atlantic at the time he came up with it. The theory is that Trig Palin is not the child of Sarah Palin but the child of Bristol Palin.


Here is the DUndergound 'discuss' kick off.
Here is the Fox New article with the Huckabee quote.
Here is the post at the Huckabee PA Committee site.
Here is a discussion of Sullivan's 'Trig' theory.
Here is Sullivan in 2009 discussing his (the Sullivan) theory.
Here is a piece from 2008 claiming photographic proof that Sarah Palin was not the mother of Trig
Here is a piece by a professor at Cornell listing all the people who would have had to be in on the conspiracy to have it work.

Is ABC's "Made in America' Series Hypocritical?

An accusation is within the title of a post on the FAIR blog (FAIR = "Facts and Accuracy in Reporting).

As I understand this, FAIR contends that one of the ABC episodes in the "Made in America" series, focused on consumer products and 'discovered' that a large amount (at least in one home) were made overseas, mostly in China (I'm going to pass over the obvious problem here that a sample of one home isn't very scientific and, in fact, I'm willing to bet most of the products used in the building of that house were made in this county. Yes, the whole ABC program is merely infotainment as far as I'm concerned).

FAIR contends, again, as I understand this, that the series should focus also (or possibly mainly) on corporate purchasing and further that the Disney Corporation (which has owned ABC since the mid 1990s) should be singled out for investigation and exposure and that not doing so is hypocritical. There is also a series of statements to the effect that Disney is a 'outsourcer'.

I'm going to list just some of the reasons why I don't think this is hypocrisy.

1. The ABC program's thrust is to encourage future actions (i.e., buy US products in the future) and thus Disney's prior purchases of foreign products is not 'undoable'.

2. Just how much of Disney's purchases are foreign anyway? Is it 20%, 30%, 40% and how did this compare with the aggregate of consumer purchases? Maybe, in a quantitative sense, Disney's purchases are more "US-centric" than the average consumer.

3. Suppose Disney purchased only US made products and those products were more expensive and required Disney to reduce its US work force. Wouldn't that be counter productive?

4. Granted the choice of what to cover in the ABC program is subjective. So what. Isn't that the nature of infotainment. Wouldn't the ABC program have a difficult time investigating the Disney Corp.'s use of 'foreign products' given the complexity of the supply chain (Disney buys products from China but some of those products use US parts or were designed in the US).

5. This entire argument shows ignorance of the principle of comparative advantage. If the US produces ' creative content' better than China and China produces toys better that the US, both countries benefit by the US concentrating on the former and China concentrating on the latter.


FAIR blog post is here and an action alert here. My brother relayed a request from a friend of his to me to analyze this.

When Nazi Metaphors are OK and When They are Not

The Jewish Fund for Justice recently organized a petition of Rabbis to send to the President of Fox News. The petition argued that Fox News host Glenn Beck was trivializing the holocaust by continuing to refer to George Soros as a Nazi collaborator (when he was 14 Soros was sent to a non Jewish family to hide and he, Soros, helped one of the family members who worked for the Nazis identifying Jewish property).

Beck is obviously pushing the outer limit (maybe past the outer limit) on defining 'Nazi collaboration').

However, when George Soros himself said that Fox News is like the media that enabled the rise of Hitler the JFfJ defended the statement.

I don't know enough about that period of history to know how much the German media of the early 1930s (after Hitler assumed power in early 1933, the media did become an important propaganda tool) enabled the rise of Hitler (Soros was born in 1930 so he probably doesn't remember much of that period either). Since I think the Nazis frequently blamed the 'jewish controlled media' for their problems, it is hard to understand what Soros is talking about.

Anyway, it seems to me that comparing Fox News to Nazi enabling media is at least as detached from reality as calling Soros a 'Nazi collaborator'.

JFfJ = guilty of hypocrisy.

or it could be that (as noted in the Commentary piece hotlinked below) since the JFfJ receives funding from Soros, they simply can't bring themselves to criticize him.

Jewish Fund for Justice PA announcement re the criticism of Glenn Beck is here.
Commentary's discussion of the JFfJ defense of Soros is here.

Hillary Accuses Iran of Hypocrisy

Secretary Clinton gave an extended statement (Feb 14) on Iran in which she accused Iran of Hypocrisy. Here is a quote (near as I can get it)

"...What we see happening in Iran today is a testament to the courage of the Iranian people and an indictment of the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime - a regime, which over the last three weeks has constantly hailed what went on in Egypt. And now, when given the opportunity to afford their people the same rights as they called for on behalf of the Egyptian people, [Iran's leaders] once again illustrate their true nature,"

Although I dislike the "Iranian regime", I'm not sure about the charge of hypocrisy. Yes the Iranian regime hailed what went on in Egypt (an ambiguous phrase) but did they (the Iranian regime) actually say, "Egypt should afford freedom of assembly" or "Egypt should refrain from the use of force when dealing with protesters". I think Iranian regime used more ambiguous remarks in which they said something like "hooray for the protesters" and meant something like "Hail to Egyptians for humiliating an ally of the US".

Unfortunately, I can't certify this as hypocrisy.


video here

Is Bob Edgar (CEO of Common Cause) a Hypocrite

Recently, Common Cause (whose CEO is Bob Edgar a former US Representative) sponsored or organized or facilitated (they paid for a bus to transport protesters) a demonstration in Palm Springs California. The demonstration was to protest a meeting of Koch Industries. This would be a non event except that some citizen journalists (I think conservatives) taped a two demonstrators specifically calling for the lynching of Supreme Court Justice Thomas and others calling for the assassination of Justice Scalia, Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas (method unspecified) and the wife of Justice Thomas and also urging the hanging of Fox News President Roger Ailes (there seemed to be only about 50 people in the demonstration so that means that almost 15% of the people in attendance advocated killing someone).

Whether this shows that Common Cause attracts (or recruits) 'haters' or whether the activist left in general attracts 'haters' is not my subject of analysis. Nor is the fact that while Justice Kennedy wrote the decision, the hate speech was directed at Justices Thomas, Roberts and Scalia.

However, the interesting thing about this from the issue of hypocrisy is the reason for the demonstration. Apparently Common Cause is against the Supreme Court's decision in 2010 that in essence, gave corporations the same rights to free speech as individuals. Common Cause is a corporation.

Does this make Common Cause hypocritical? I think the answer might be 'no' because, Common Cause could say that they favor free speech for non profit corporations but not for for-profit corporations (notwithstanding that this may be a difficult argument to make legally and which would obviously be constitutionally dubious given the decision already made. However, for the answer to be no, Common Cause should organize a protest of a George Soros or some other left wing rich person funded organization (e.g., Media Matters). If they don't do that, the answer goes from 'no' to 'yes'. The LATimes has an editorial along these lines. The NYTimes has a pro Common Cause editorial.

The self serving 'it was just a few bad apples' argument in the press release does make me think Common Cause is sleazy and intellectually dishonest but those are other issues.

The Common Cause PR release apologizing for the views of some of the demonstrators is here.
The video of this event is here.

Former U.S. Representative Paul E. Kanjorski

Back in October 2010, then Representative Kanjorski said,

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

Here is a part of Kanjorski's op-ed in today's NYTimes (this follows the shooting of a US Representative in AZ):

"....We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation...."

He is a few months from calling for the execution of a person running for Governor of Florida (a person who was not charged with a crime by the way, a person who won election in that State and is the current Governor). Now he says to create an atmosphere of civility. I'm going to assume that he hasn't changed his mind about Governor Scott because there is no evidence of that. Therefore, I can't get out of calling Kanjorski a hypocrite.

It may be of interest why the NYTimes chose him, of all people, to pen an op-ed on civility. Maybe the NYTimes is too lazy to check Kanjorski out or maybe the NYTimes figured no one else would do fact checking or maybe they consider calling for the execution of a person running for Governor as not a big deal since Kanjorski was in Pennsylvania at the time. Who knows.

Kanjorski served in the US House for about 26 years and was defeated in his bid for reelection in 2010.

A news org called Kanjorski and confronted him with his quote about now-Governor Scott and Kanjorski said that people should have known he was joking because he uses colorful language a lot.

Scranton, PA newspaper article containing the quote about executing now-Governor Scott is:

http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#axzz1A4hLabIP

NYTimes op - ed (it requires sign up):

https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11Kanjorski.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26partnerQ3DrssQ26emcQ3Drss

NASA and the
New Life Form

A few days ago there was an announcement of a "new life" form here on earth. It was an article on the web site of the journal Science. Some of the authors were employees of NASA.

It was a bacterium that uses arsenic in place of phosphate and it was discovered in Mono Lake.

NASA then had a press conference.

After a while, people began noticing flaws in the research method, flaws in the analysis, etc. and that the whole announcement was hyped, in that the bacterium evolved from old life forms and isn't that much different.

At this point NASA decided all questions about the "new life" form should be handled in writing through the review process.

A SLATE article states that if NASA were willing to have a press conference on this then they should let the authors answer questions directly, in public. If not, they are being hypocritical.

I'll say that NASA looks bad here. They made a mistake in the announcement and they should admit it (and the NASA officials who were behind the PA announcement should be disciplined). Yes, if they don't do that they are a little bit hypocritical (only one PA announcement).

Notwithstanding this, the number of questions is a lot and handling it all in public would be difficult so I sympathize with NASA here (even though NASA is responsible for the mess).

The NYTimes
and the Wikileaks

The NY Times famously refused to publish the leaked emails from Britain (University of E Anglia) regarding climate research. The overall situation was called climategate by some.

The NY Times did publish many of the Wikileaks of diplomatic cables and before that published details of military reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The NY Times reacting to charges of hypocrisy has a defense of itself here.

Although wordy and containing many tangential issues that I don't understand completely, the NY Times says that they covered the climategate story in their news department and thus gave it the prominence it deserved. That would be a fair defense if the NY Times said that it didn't publish actual emails in the climategate case because, say, it didn't understand the scientific terminology but it did publish in the wikileak case because it did understand all the terminology but that was not asserted.

The problem for the NY Times is that by covering one issue in news reports and in the other giving actual data, it is implying something different about the two. However, I don't see what that difference is and why the difference matters. For example, in both cases, the emails or cables were supposed to be secret (actually the diplomatic cables would have a formal SECRET clearance and the E Anglia emails would not). For another, in both cases, the actual emails or cables will be available somewhere else. Still another, in both cases the emails or diplomatic cables were not meant to be revealed.

One important difference that has been pointed out is that revealing the diplomatic cables embarrass the US while revealing the E Anglia emails only embarrass some climatologists who believe that catastrophic or dangerous global warming is happening and is human caused (these are caused 'warmists' sometimes by their opponents). If this is the case, then the NY Times is guilty of hypocrisy but of a minimal kind since the information is elsewhere revealed.

The NY Times defense of itself does contain a fascinating detail about the Climategate incident. In that case some of the emails were from climate researchers to the NY Times. These emails might have, to some, made the NY Times look like dupes to the warmists.

Rashi Didn't Like Hypocrisy

This week, the parsha is Vayesheiv.

Near the beginning of the parsha is the narrative about the conflict between Joseph and his brothers.

The end of sentence 4 of chapter 37 says that Joseph's brothers were so angry (because of Joseph's attitude, talebearing, etc.) that they couldn't speak to him peacefully.

Rashi comments on this wasthat the brethren should be praised for not speaking one thing while thinking another in their heart. The super-commentary on Rashi was, "praise for the brothers who were not hypocrites"