Warren's About Face on Sessions

In mid 2017, US Senator Elizabeth Warren was one of the leaders of a call for Attorney General William Sessions to resign.

Now, less than 18 months later she is calling the resignation of Sessions a constitutional crisis.

It could be that Warren changed her overall opinion but allows to the opinion that Sessions has 'protected' the work of special prosecutor Mueller. 


However, I can't find any evidence prior to November 2018, of, say, a Warren statement praising Sessions or a Warren statement saying she was wrong in calling for Sessions to resign.


If these don't exist, then it would be hypocrisy.




Article and photo from the Boston Herald here.

Another hypocrisy column: this time in USA Today

Glen Reynolds, a professor of law at Tennessee and a relatively well known blogger (he is on the right in the first image which also has his two brothers), writes a weekly column for USA Today. Yesterday, the title of the column was,

Sen. John McCain's funeral put Washington's vicious political hypocrisy fully on display.

The column makes the point that, in 2000, a number of Republicans said nasty things about McCain and in 2008, a lot of Democrats said nasty things about McCain (the image shows Madonna at a concert where she compared McCain to Hitler and Robert Mugabe) but at McCain's funeral, former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama praised McCain.

The point is a good one but I have a problem with calling it hypocrisy. This is because, neither Bush nor Obama were the people who said nasty things about McCain in 2000 and 2008.   Also, the people who did say nasty things  back are not quoted with respect to McCain in 2018. 

I've made approximately the same distinction in other posts but since this column was in USA Today, I thought I'd redo the distinction once again.

 

 

The column is available here.

Madonna's image is from an article on that 2008 concert.

The photo of the Reynolds brothers is from a post on the Instapundit blog.

 

.

Marco Rubio on Trump/Kim vs Obama/Castro

The image to the left is from a south Florida WLRM publication which accuses Senator Marco Rubio of Hypocrisy. The accusation is that Rubio criticized former President Obama for the same thing current President Trump did, namely meeting a dictator. The double standard is a type of hypocrisy but not as strong as if, say, Obama would have denounced the Trump/Kim meeting (he has not done so as of the day of this post).

The article has a short quote from Rubio on the Obama/Castro meeting and from Rubio on the Trump/Kim meeting.

 However, the article brings up an additional point which is important, namely, what did the US get out of the meeting.  There is good reason to differentiate between summits that achieve good results and those that don't.

So what did the US get out of the Obama meeting with Raul Castro?  There was a release of some political prisoners (some of whom were rearrested soon after Obama left Cuba).  What did the US give up? There were some economic and travel restrictions that were reduced or eliminated. The US placed diplomatic personnel in Cuba but then removed the personnel. Many of the diplomatic personnel had contracted illness in Cuba. The US concessions to Cuba were canceled by Trump in mid 2017.

What did the US get out of the Trump meeting with Kim Jung Un?  Several political prisoners were released before the meeting. More importantly, North Korea abandoned the testing of bombs and missiles and declared it policy to denuclearize the Korean peninsula before the Trump/Kim meeting. Some of the North Korea WMD sites are in the process of being destroyed by the North Koreans as of the date of this post.  Of course, the eventual results of this overall process are as yet unknown.

There is another important difference between the two meetings. In the case of the Trump/Kim meeting, South Korea had played an independent and also intermediary role and had it's own summit between North and South Korean leaders before the US meeting. In addition Kim visited China before the North/South Korea event. No U.S. friendly nation played such a role in the Trump/Castro meeting although both Canada and the Vatican contacts were used for logistical arrangements.


The WLRM article is here.

Article of CubaUS thaw is here.

News of re-arrest of Cuban prisoners released is here.

News of illness of US diplomatic personnel in Cuba is here.

Article on US/North Korea summit is here.

Irwin sent me a link to a video of people criticizing Obama and/or praising Trump for summitry with dictators.  That had a lot of very short statements and so was difficult to analyze.

Supreme Court Decision Seems to Turn on Colorado Commission Hypocrisy

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Jack Phillips in a case between him and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

There is a lot in the decision that is technical and distinguishes the Phillips case from other cases and places it in the perspective of other civil rights rulings and discusses other administrative issues. These issues are complex and I don't pretend to understand them.

However, one aspect of this case involves the issue of a double standard (closely related to hypocrisy) and it seems to be an important element. Apparently, in several cases, the Colorado Commission approved of bakers refusing to decorate cakes* with anti gay marriage themes but in Phillips case did not approve Phillips refusal to decorate a cake with a gay marriage theme.

The commission apparently disparaged Phillips and his beliefs in clear and unambiguous language in the administrative record. That demonstrated the disparate treatment was likely intentional not accidental (and it is also stunning that a public body would act that way).

* the case is not about 'refusing to bake a cake' as it is described in many media reports, it is about refusing to decorate a cake but this is not a hypocrisy issue


The image is of Jack Phillips of the Mastercake Cakeshop from a Slate article.

Slate article here.

The Supreme Court decision is here. The discussion of the Commission's disparate treatment of the pro and anti gay marriage bakers is on page 2 of a 59 page ruling.

Blaming Her Own Constituents for Her Previous Opinions

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of NY was once a US representative. Her district included Albany and  Schenectady.

Back when she represented that district she opposed gun control legislation and advocated stronger measures to restrict illegal immigration.

Now, her opinions have shifted 180 degrees.

She blames her previous opinions on her district constituents for making her ignorant. She says that only after becoming a Senator and talking to people in Brooklyn, did she realize her errors. 

There are some problems here since: she lived in NYCity for 10 years before she moved to Albany; they actually have newspapers and TV in Albany; she could have spoken to other US representatives. Also, she only represented the district in Albany for 2 years (2007 to 2009).  In that district, notwithstanding Gillibrand's characterization of it (being ashamed of her constituents), Obama received 58% and 59% in 2008 and 2012 and Clinton 54% in 2016. Also, she says her district was 98% white and it is actually closer to 80%.

So probably she was saying something she didn't believe in when she was a representative or is doing so now.  That's hypocrisy but not particularly damaging or serious since many, probably most, people naturally assume U S Senators (particularly the ones that change their positions 180 degrees) are prone to that. 

Irwin suggested that like the late Senator Robert Byrd and the late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (both of whom were KKK members and later renounced their membership), Gillibrand simply changed her mind on the issue.

Looking first at Senator Byrd; in the late 1950s, as he was running for the US Senate, he claimed to have left the KKK in 1942, however, as late as  late as 1946 he wrote a letter, essentially praising the Klan. Because of that letter, I would have classified him as a hypocrite in the late 1950s (he was born in 1917).  By the end of his career (2010), he had probably actually changed his mind.

Looking at Justice Black, in the 1920s Black joined the Klan but discontinued his membership in 1925. Nonetheless, in 1926 as he was running for Senator in Alabama he went to numerous Klan sponsored events and did not renounce the Klan at any of them. He later told a biographer that he joined the Klan so that it would not be dominated by irresponsible people and also said that he joined all groups that would get him votes but also said that joining the Klan was a mistake.  This make him something of an opportunist and also, someone who really never truly renounced the Klan. Thus I can't really call him a hypocrite (although never really renouncing the Klan is worse).

Comparing these two to Gillibrand is interesting. Byrd's journey away from the Klan has the problem of accounting for the 1946 pro-Klan letter. Black's journey away from the Klan seems to be opportunistic by Black's own testimony. Gillibrand's journey away from his position on gun control and immigration are clouded by the impossibility of believing her excuses. A truly sorry lot.










image and story about Senator Gillibrand is here.
presidential votes from wikipedia here
demographic from ballotpedia here

Senator Byrd and Justice Black's information come from here, here, and here. 

Exxon May Counter Sue California Cities for Hypocrisy

 Exxon filed a motion in Tarrant County, TX (which includes Ft Worth, TX) District Court last week. 

The motion seeks to obtain depositions from 12+ individuals. Exxon's contention is that these individuals have possibly conspired to abuse the law in suing Exxon for covering up climate research. 

Actually, I couldn't find the word 'hypocrisy' in the Exxon motion, but the motion definitely raises this issue. This is because:

 1. seven California cities including San Mateo county are suing Exxon for conspiracy to cover up climate research which would show a drastic increase in sea level based on a 2012 meeting in La Jolla, California and,

 2. some of these counties have, post 2012, sold bonds to investors (a big one was for San Mateo County, hence the map) declaring that they either do not expect sea level rises or do not know if there are any impacts from climate change that would raise sea levels.

I don't really understand much about the relationship between cities within a county and the county bonding authority or about the legal issues involved with selling bonds or about the issue of suing for climate research suppression.  Thus, I'm not going to take a position on the hypocrisy of the people being sued. However, it is the first example I've come across where hypocrisy could be a legal issue.

Exxon's filing is here.

Is President Trump a golf hypocrite

CNN had a story that makes the case that President Donald Trump has been playing lots of golf contradicting his campaign promises to work hard as president. The story is entitled, "Donald Trump's Huge Golf Hypocrisy". Irwin sent me a link to the CNN story.



The story actually does more than that. It chronicles many statements by candidate Trump that either promise to not play golf when elected or criticize former President Barack Obama for playing golf or criticize Obama for not making deals when playing golf.  

A defense of Trump is proffered by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. The defense is, as I understand it, that golf, when played while discussing business is not really playing golf.  In that regard, the first image is Trump playing golf with pro golfer Rory McIlroy in February 2017. The second image is Trump playing golf with Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe in the summer of 2017. Per the Sanders theory, the first game is golf the second is business.

I tried to find this theory in the 1987 book "Art of the Deal" but was unable to find it. However, even if I had, it is clear that there are plenty of times, that Trump has played golf without doing ' business'.

However, I did find an interesting article by the ghost writer of the 1987 book (who gets credit on the cover and inside so its not so 'ghosty'). He explains Trump's counterfactual statements like this, " ...facts are whatever Trump deems them to be on any given day. When he is challenged, he instinctively doubles down — even when what he has just said is demonstrably false. I saw that countless times, whether it was as trivial as exaggerating the number of floors at Trump Tower or as consequential as telling me that his casinos were performing well when they were actually going bankrupt....".

So, perhaps, "hypocrisy" isn't the best way to describe Trump's golf statements. Magical thinking might be a better way to do it.




First image from Politifact.

Second image from the Daily Mail.

CNN story is here. 

A .pdf of "Art of the Deal" is here. 

The article by Trump's ghostwriter is here.

Senator Manchin sees "Hypocrisy at the highest level"

Senator Manchin (D-W.VA) denounced the coerced and presumably upcoming resignation of Al Franken (D-MN) today and used the word, 'Hypocrisy'.

The image shows the two Senators, with Manchin on the left. Manchin commented on Senators who called for Franken to resign and then watched Senator Franken's resignation statement (in which Franken said he would resign at a future time).

The statement using 'hypocrisy' was,

"...The most hypocritical thing I’ve ever seen done to a human being — and then have enough guts to sit on the floor, watch him give his speech and go over and hug him? That’s hypocrisy at the highest level I’ve ever seen in my life. Made me sick,”

I don't understand Manchin's use of the phrase, 'most hypocritical thing'. Calling for someone to resign and then watching him make a speech seems devoid of any hypocrisy.

Watching Franken give his speech in which he never apologized nor named victims and go over and hug him seems strange. If the hug were sensual and non consensual and if such a hug were given by a person who called for him to resign that would be hypocritical.  I don't have any way to judge that, I doubt Manchin does either.







Information and image from a Politico article here.

Climate Scientist calls other climate scientists hypocrites

An Op-ed in the Guardian presented the argument that climate scientists shouldn't fly. This was done, I think, to show, among other things, why the author did not attend a conference held by the American Geophysics Union.

It was authored by Peter Kalmus (that's him in the image) who is a scientist with NASA involved in the physics of clouds. For some years, Dr. Kalmus has been writing articles about how he himself stopped using airplanes and how he bicycles around, etc.

He implies that other scientist are hypocrites (he does not use the word 'hypocrisy') for flying to conferences on climate (thus making climate scientists among the most prolific carbon emitters on the planet- if you accept his assumptions). He does so in the way of 'confession and redemption' which makes this interesting. Here is a sample of the confession,

"... In 2010, I sat down and estimated my climate emissions. It turns out that, hour for hour, there’s no better way to warm the planet than to fly. I’d flown 50,000 miles during the year, mostly to scientific meetings. Those flights accounted for 3/4 of my annual emissions..."

and here is the redemption,

"...Eventually, there came a day when I was on the runway about to take off and felt an overwhelming desire not to be on the plane. I saw too clearly the harm it was doing to the world’s children, to all the beings on our planet. I haven’t flown since 2012, nor have I wanted to.."

Of course, not all scientists at all conferences are there to discuss climate science. In fact the event he mentioned in his op-ed, the American Geophysics Union conference, had many sessions that were not about climate science. Also, while Kalmus is happy in his presumably secure job, many people are not and find going to conferences a way to network to other jobs. So, to some extent, Kalmus is just grandstanding and preaching. Also, I wonder if Kalmus ever co-authors articles and lets his co-authors go to conferences and present. Finally not all people at the APU have the same fear of carbon dioxide based global warming as Kalmus. 

The op ed by Kalmus is here.

A 2014 article by Kalmus about his low carbon life is here. The third image is from that site and show his wife and kids.

Trump and Illegals

On Nov 28 Newsweek had a 'news scoop' based on recently released court records. The scoop was that Donald Trump had once hired illegal immigrants and underpaid them.

Reading deeper into the story, the time of the hiring was 1980 (the image is Trump meeting Reagan in about 1980).  This was before NAFTA which was negotiated in 1993. It is even before the 1986 Immigration Reform Bill signed by then President Reagan. Also, Trump's hiring of the illegals had been indirect as Trump had contracted with a company that did the actual hiring (although that company's use of illegals was probably widely known). 

Considering this as hypocrisy would be silly because of the antiquity of the action.  Trump, however denied ever having hired illegals which is actually an example of magic thinking. It is more belligerent and gross than other politicians (e.g., "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period. Nobody will take it away from you."). Politifact recorded several dozen versions of this, here. The Newsweek story noted above is here. A Time story from 2016 with more details on the building project in question, and which has the Trump picture from 1980 on the site of the project, is here.

Linda Bloodworth-Thomason Admits Hypocrisy - sort of

Today's Hollywood Reporter has a long news/opinion piece by Linda Bloodworth-Thomason. She is a long time friend of Hillary Clinton (first image from 1993 Linda and her husband are with the Clintons)

Linda is also a long time Hollywood celebrity. She was an actress,then in management and eventually a producer. Perhaps her most famous product was the TV show Designing Women which was on from 1986 thru 1993. 

In her news/opinion piece, Linda provides numerous examples of decades of Hollywood big shots harrassing, abusing and intimidating women. 

So far, no big deal. However, in the piece was this "admission",

"... I, myself, was a member of a "Let's Bring Harvey Weinstein Down" lunch club, and I don't even work in features. However, I will be the first to admit that clearly delineated moral choices can still be painfully complex where friendship is involved. One of the best friends I will ever have and a man I love dearly, former President Bill Clinton, has certainly taxed my feminist conscience, but always without diminishing my affection. I even helped write his apology to the nation for his own sexual misconduct, was sitting next to him when he delivered it, and believe to this day it was based on something that was none of our business. And yes, some may call it hypocritical, but I confess to having had no problem warning at least three top-level Democratic operatives against allowing Harvey Weinstein to host political fundraisers...."

Linda (second image is from about 1998) admits (or brags) about helping Clinton in the Lewinsky affair but is silent about the fact that she helped Clinton in the Flowers affair.  

She also doesn't mention the Paula Jones case, the Kathy Wiley case or the Juanita Broderick case (last image), all three of which may have involved assault (possibly rape in the Broderick case). Another interesting point in the piece is that Linda 'confesses' to warning top level operatives about Harvey Weinstein but not to warning Hillary or Bill Clinton.

Yes, it is a confession, but not, by a long way, a full confession.



Linda Bloodworth-Thomason's article in the Hollywood Reporter is here

The Problem with Calling Hollywood Hypocritical in the Harvey W case

Irwin sent me a op ed in his local paper. Jonah Goldberg, the author, titled it, "Weinstein scandal leaves a trail of hypocrisy" 

Basically, Goldberg, considers 'Hollywood' hypocritical for criticizing President Trump for once saying he would grab a woman by her genitals (even if he never did it) but left Harvey Weinstein alone to terrorize women in Hollywood for decades.

There are two problems with this.

1. Hollywood is not a person. Hollywood is made up of many people and different people at different times and it is even not clear to me if anyone has a coherent and generally accepted definition of what "Hollywood" is. Thus you really can't say "Hollywood is hypocritical" without naming individuals who are hypocritical.

2. Let's focus on some people in particular, say Meryl Streep (first image) and Hillary Clinton (second image).  Meryl, famously thanked Harvey in an award acceptance by referring to him as God. Hillary, has accepted millions of dollars to her various campaigns, to the Clinton foundation and so forth.  Why are we sure Meryl and Hillary knew about Harvey's sexual depredations. Is it even remotely possible that Meryl would refer to Harvey as God if she knew? Wouldn't Hillary have had something prepared to say the day the NYTimes blew the cover on Harvey if Hillary would have known about it?  For that matter why would Hillary allow fawning images of herself with Harvey? Meryl and Hillary may have been convincing themselves that the 'nice' man who was well behaved and intelligent when they saw him was well behaved all the time. This type of thinking, an element of the condition sometimes called 'Denial', is pretty common. It is a big part of why dictators get loyal followers. It is a big part of why scam artists are successful. 

Also, whatever else may be said about Harvey Weinstein, at least it must be acknowledged that he abused grown women. There are worse people. For example, Roman Polanski (in the image he is with Johnny Depp), was charged with and pleaded guilty to with rape (by drugging) of a 13 year old. Whoopi Goldberg famously defended that as not "Rape-Rape" on the View in 2009. 

 Corey Feldman (who starred in Goonies, Gremlins and other movies) gave an interview in 2011 stating that he and many others had been molested as child actors. Barbara Walters criticized Corey (a still of this is the 4th image) for making this interview (as it damaged many 'good people' in Hollywood).  I assume Barbara doesn't believe Corey for the same or a similar reason Meryl didn't think Harvey was a predator -if Barbara actually knows about the child molesting and is covering it up, she is a monster 

Corey has not gone as far as identifying specific individuals. Other people have done so. On the left is an accused molester (he pleaded 'no contest' and served time) and his purported victim. The accused is named, "Martin Weiss" and he was a talent scout who specialized in finding and managing youngsters for Hollywood companies.




The Goldberg op ed is here.
The youtube in which Meryl Streep refers to Harvey Weinstein as God is here.
Story from the Guardian about Roman Polanski is here.
Whoopi's defense of Polanski is here.
Barbara Walters criticism of Corey Feldman on the View is here.
Ten Disturbing Pedophile stories, including the one with my namesake, is here.

Associated Press tries out a hypocrisy call out

 The Associated Press had a news release that used the phrase "... ties to Weinstein open [Steve] Bannon [former adviser to President Trump] up to charges of hypocrisy...."

What are these 'ties'.

Well back in 2005, Bannon had a DVD distribution business called Genius Products (it was more than just DVDs but, if I understand correctly, all the rest of the business was small compared to the DVD part).

Bannon developed a partnership with The Weinstein Company that year. Bannon reaped some income from that partnership but the Genius Products company went into bankruptcy in 2011.

There is no evidence that Bannon met Harvey Weinstein. Nor is Bannon a Hollywood insider. Nor is Bannon known to keep up with Hollywood affairs.

Actually, the AP probably knew a lot more about Weinstein's sexual assault history that Bannon.

I'd have to give the AP's try at hypocrisy documentation a failing grade.

The AP news is in the Minneapolis Star Tribune here.

Two Hypocrisy related Resignations

HHS Secretary Tom Price (first image is of Secretary Price) resigned on September 29.  He had run up a significant travel bill using chartered flights.  As a US Representative he had criticized others for excess travel costs funded by taxpayers.

The NYTimes article on this is here.
An article from Fortune is here.
A Washington Post article is here.

Price's resignation letter (a link in the NYTimes article contains this) doesn't admit fault (he claimed that because of scheduling, charters were necessary) but he had offered to reimburse the government for some of the costs (the second image is the inside of a Gulfstream, the kind of plane frequently  chartered).

For my part, I found, while in the government that high level officials spent a lot of time and effort going to conferences, which perhaps boosted egos but had essentially no impact. I was a conference organizer several times and found out that a lot of technical people want high level officials at their conferences even though, post conference, they admit that the high level official hadn't said anything important (or frequently didn't even understand the subject they were talking about). 

Notwithstanding this, many high level people seem to actually believe in that their mere presence at conferences is vital and/or important so this may be a case of magical thinking rather than hypocrisy.

 A few days later, US Representative Tim Murphy (R-PA18) resigned. The third image is Representative Murphy - his resignation is effective October 21.

He was pro life (although I don't know whether he is against all abortions or only in those after a certain period of the pregnancy - this would be important in determining hypocrisy) in his policies.

He had recently had an extra marital affair with a

woman (on the left in the 4th image- her name is Dr Shannon Edwards) and had suggested she get an abortion if she were pregnant (she wasn't). 

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette has a report on the affair here (which also implies that the Congressman doesn't actually know exactly what his policy is on abortion)

The NYTimes has a report on the resignation here. 

The Daily Mail has a report here (it has the image of Dr. Edwards above.)

Al Gore Update from 2007

The first hypocrisy inc. post on the electricity usage in former Vice President Al Gore's home in Nashville, TN was here.

In the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' Gore called for individuals to save the earth by reducing energy usage.

At that time, Gore's home used about 20 times the average home electrical usage. It is a big house (image to the left) and, at the time, I speculated that there might be some kind of security service operating out of the building that was taking a lot of electricity. Also, at the time, Gore was planning a number of capital improvements to the property. These included solar panels, window treatments and other energy saving items. 

Well, it is now about 10 years later and a new Al Gore movie, "Inconvenient Sequel" is in some theaters (a publicity shot for that movie is the final image) .  

An update of the electrical usage of Gore's home is here. Apparently, Gore's home now uses even more electricity than it did before the solar panels, etc. were installed (the security is basically the same s 10 years ago) . The home also uses far more per square foot than similar homes. Also, Gore (a recent image is at the top of the post) has two other homes. One house he and his wife Tipper purchased was on the California coast. That property went to Tipper in a divorce so that isn't among Gore's homes.  Gore does spend about $5,000 per year for a program that is something like a carbon offset.  He was also doing something like this in 2007 but the details were not known as well as today.  It is conceivable, barely, that Gore actually believes that his carbon offset outweighs the energy usage of this home (even though it is just one of three homes).  Thus I'll decline to give this a hypocrisy award. 

Update: Based on the argument that Gore really wants better laws not individual action and based on the carbon offset theory, The New Republic defends Gore here.

Trump Criticized Biden Travel Costs then exceeds Biden +Obama Travel Costs

Irwin sent me a yahoo news article on this.

Back in 2012, Donald Trump criticized the cost of the travel of then Vice President Joe Biden.

Trump also criticized then President Obama for taking off too much time for vacation (although apparently Trump never criticized Obama's cost of travel - at least I can't find any).

Now that he is President, President Trump's travel costs are quickly adding up.

Is this hypocrisy?

First off, as noted above, Trump never seems to have criticized Obama's travel costs.

Secondly, it was 5 years ago.

Third, I'm not sure the travel cost accounting is the same now as it was back in 2012.

Fourth, I think this is just about a guy who in 2012 didn't understand the issue he was discussing. Similarly, back in 2008, then candidate Obama was against Presidential signing statements attached to laws. Within a short time (not the 5 years that Trump had between the criticism of travel costs and his own costs) after he took office he was issuing them prodigiously. 









Yahoo report on Trump's travel cost is here
Earlier post on Obama's signing statement policy is here.
.

Eric Trump - is there hypocrisy in the long rant

Eric Trump, born in 1984, is the 3rd child of Ivana and Donald Trump.

Two seeming statements were made (I think) by Eric in an interview that Irwin found to be potentially a case of hypocrisy.

One statement, referring to critics of Donald Trump (or possibly of all the Trump family or possibly just Eric Trump) was

‘...To me, they’re not even people’

another (which is in the news report on the interview but I couldn't find it in the transcript) was,  referring, I think, to Democratic Legislators,

 

“I’ve never seen hatred like this..."

Both statements were, I think, part of a relatively long interview. Some background on this is needed to understand the context.

Eric Trump is involved in a number of activities. One of them is philanthropy.  Eric is the CEO of the Eric Trump Foundation which is the mechanism by which the philanthropy is carried out. The ET foundation is under investigation by the State of NY.  The reason seems to be that money from the ET foundation went to pay for the use of golf clubs belonging to the Trump Organization (the second image is from 2008 and shows Rudy Guliani, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Joe Torre on one of the Trump Golf Courses - this was I think part of a fundraising event for the Donald Trump Foundation) and this was either not declared properly or that it is something foundations shouldn't do (I don't understand much about the subject of charitable foundations).

This is just too confusing to call it hypocrisy. First of all the transcript doesn't follow the news report very well. Secondly, Eric Trump seems to be discussing two or more issues. Thus the two statements do not seem to be aimed at the same people. If it were the same people, it would be a case of a contradiction not hypocrisy since Eric Trump has never said, "Don't call people inhuman" and then called them 'not even human'.  

The video and a news report of the Eric Trump interview is here.

The transcript of the Eric Trump interview (it has others first so the interview begins about 80% down in the file) is here.

As a bonus an article on why 'strategic charity' frequently fails (Eric Trump must never have read this) is  here.

Katy Perry and the 'No Walls' hypocrisy

Entertainer Katy Perry has said, that, following the Manchester England terror bombing, 

"... I think that the greatest thing we can do is just unite and love on each other. No barriers, no borders, we all just need to co-exist."

Katy Perry bought some property in Beverly Hills earlier this year. It had lots of security.

Katy's comment about 'no barriers' while being protected by barriers is similar to comments made by former President Obama and Pope Francis but Katy is prettier. 

There is some hypocrisy here but also obliviousness since the 'no barrier comments' are merely vapid expressions of virtue or hoped for virtue.

Katy Perry's purchase of property in Beverly Hills from an article in Variety.

The Sun's report on extra security for the next concert is here.

US News and World Report article about Obama says we shouldn't hide behind walls is here.
TMZ report on the walls under construction in Jan 2017 at Obama's post presidency residence is here.

Reuters report on the Pope's objection to walls is here.
Trip Advisor image of massive Vatican City Wall is here.

Is Sulu (George Takei) a hypocrite

George Takai played Sulu on various Star Trek products.  He began as an Ensign and by the time of 'The Wrath of Khan', he was a full commander.  Takai is a frequent tweeter with an extensive audience who get his tweets aka, his tweet followers.

Takai sent out a tweet recently with an instagram photo of Pope Francis, President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump and the President's daughter from an earlier marriage (and advisor) Ivanka Trump.  Takai apparently complains that the dark clothes of the ladies signal dark times for our government.

Back in 2009, at about the same stage of his Presidency, then President Obama and First Lady Michelle met with a different Pope. Michelle wore about the same thing in 2009 as Melania did in 2017 (see image 2).  Not a peep out of Takai back then.

Hypocrisy? Probably not. First of all Takai may not have an account back then as twitter was relatively new. Also, Takai is, as pointed out by many other blogs, a drama queen (even if he was hetero this would be the description) who, for example, has repeatedly escalated and the de-escalated his various disputes with William Shatner for no apparently reason.



George Takai's tweet is here

ABC news report on July 2009 meeting between the Obamas and the Pope is here.


Photo of Pope Benedict, then President Obama and then First Lady Michele Obama is from Zimbio taken in July 2009.

Senator Schumer and the James Comey Pivot

Back in June 2016, after recommending against prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Charles Schumer liked then FBI Director James Comey.

In early November 2016, just before the Presidential election but after Comey had reopened the Clinton email investigation based on newly discovered e-mails, Schumer declared that Comey was untrustworthy. In the cartoon, a cartoonist, makes the same point.

In May 2017, after President Trump fired Comey, Schumer declared the firing a major mistake because, in Schumer's opinion, Comey was investigating the Trump-Russia linkage. The 1st picture shows a 2003 visit by Putin to NYC where Putin appeared with a smiling Schumer; this was after a Russian oil company opened a gas station in Brooklyn, NY. 

Schumer is not the only one who has changed their mind on Comey. Democrats have done so and Republicans (including Trump) have done so but at opposite times. The Republican National Committee put together a video of Democrats who changed their mind about Comey. The Democrats could do something similar, but as best as I can tell have not done so.

I've picked on Schumer only because he is the Minority Leader of the U.S. Senate, because he claims to have gotten a perfect SAT score (there is no way to determine if this is true) and he loves TV attention but doesn't seem to realize how phony and sanctimonious he sounds.

Is it hypocrisy?

Apparently, there is a way to be both against Comey and against Comey's firing based on 'timing'. The theory being that Comey is investigating the Russia-Trump linkage (although Comey isn't doing the investigation himself, he was, among other things, in charge of supervising the allocation of FBI investigative resources to the various activities they have underway).  This is the position that the NYTimes takes in an editorial (although they don't seem to realize that Comey is not an investigator).  Personally, I consider this position absurd (and the acting director stated in a Congressional hearing that there was adequate resources for the Russia-Trump investigation) but I admit that if you are determined to do so, it is possible to convince yourself of it.

Washington Examiner article in Nov 2016 where Schumer has lost confidence in Comey is here.

Washington Examiner article in May 2017 where Schumer attacks Trump for firing Comey is here.

NYtimes  editorial stating that Comey is untrustworthy and simultaneously stating that firing Comey is not only wrong but puts the nation in peril is here.

Schumer's claim of a perfect SAT score is here.

Picture of Schumer and Putin from ChiTribune article here.