Terrorists execute a hostage - cite abuse of Iraqi prisoners
Today, the terrorists holding an American contractor hostage executed him (and posted the images on a website) citing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Not a single newspaper has yet pointed out this as a case of hypocrisy, although its obvious the terrorists aren't really concerned with the abuse (which has been general knowledge since January, apparently although the pictures are new).
If I were a newspaper editor I also would not point out the hypocrisy. That's because terrorism is worse than hypocrisy; much, much, much worse. The hypocrisy is insignificant compared to that.
A Reuters article on the execution is at: http://">http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5108202
Monday, April 05, 2004
More on the DailyKos hatespeech post
A good narrative on the follow up to the original dailykos post was at: http://berrysworld.blogspot.com/archives/2004_04_04_berrysworld_archive.html#108116036761252544
It turns out that there are layers and layers of direct and indirect hypocrisy here.
In addition to the non-apology apology, there is the non-report report where a friend or ideological soulmate of Dailykos intentionally downplays the 'hate' part of the hate post and then says, in effect, "why are people persecuting poor dailykos?"
How harmful is this? Well, it seems to me that the people harmed are the people who do the 'non report report' and the 'non apology apology', but maybe their readers are also affected. I'll have to think about this.
A good narrative on the follow up to the original dailykos post was at: http://berrysworld.blogspot.com/archives/2004_04_04_berrysworld_archive.html#108116036761252544
It turns out that there are layers and layers of direct and indirect hypocrisy here.
In addition to the non-apology apology, there is the non-report report where a friend or ideological soulmate of Dailykos intentionally downplays the 'hate' part of the hate post and then says, in effect, "why are people persecuting poor dailykos?"
How harmful is this? Well, it seems to me that the people harmed are the people who do the 'non report report' and the 'non apology apology', but maybe their readers are also affected. I'll have to think about this.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
John Dean vs. GWBush
At: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/04/wnix04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/04/ixportaltop.html
John Dean, the former chief counsel (and convicted perjuror) to Richard Nixon blasted the Bush administration for being corrupt because (as I understand it) they won't let national security advisor Rice testify in public to the 9-11 commission. It seems the word 'corrupt' actually means 'secretive' but wait a minute, Rice is going to testify in public. So John Dean isn't being hypocritical just very, very sloppy and very, very behind the times and very, very hysterical.
Oddly, the actual hypocrit here is the President who, at first said that public testimony by Rice would badly damage the executive's ability to get honest advise, then said, 'oh well go ahead anyway.' Obviously either he didn't mean what he said when he won't let Rice testify or he didn't mean what he said when he did let Rice testify. In either case, however, this is a pretty inconsequential piece of hypocrisy and in fact, the President, is, I think, supposed to get huffy when he executive perogatives are challenged.
At: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/04/wnix04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/04/ixportaltop.html
John Dean, the former chief counsel (and convicted perjuror) to Richard Nixon blasted the Bush administration for being corrupt because (as I understand it) they won't let national security advisor Rice testify in public to the 9-11 commission. It seems the word 'corrupt' actually means 'secretive' but wait a minute, Rice is going to testify in public. So John Dean isn't being hypocritical just very, very sloppy and very, very behind the times and very, very hysterical.
Oddly, the actual hypocrit here is the President who, at first said that public testimony by Rice would badly damage the executive's ability to get honest advise, then said, 'oh well go ahead anyway.' Obviously either he didn't mean what he said when he won't let Rice testify or he didn't mean what he said when he did let Rice testify. In either case, however, this is a pretty inconsequential piece of hypocrisy and in fact, the President, is, I think, supposed to get huffy when he executive perogatives are challenged.
Kerry and hip hop
Last week Kerry made some positive and cautionary comments about hip hop music. The theory is widespread that he actually knows nothing about the subject. This is more or less innocent pandering but its amusing none the less. A good read on this is at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003612.php
Last week Kerry made some positive and cautionary comments about hip hop music. The theory is widespread that he actually knows nothing about the subject. This is more or less innocent pandering but its amusing none the less. A good read on this is at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003612.php
The Daily Kos's manuvers
A few days ago dailykos (a popular left wing blogger - up to 3M hits/day) posted some thoughts about some civilian American causalties. He basically celebrated their death by mutilation deaths. Shortly thereafter, dailykos eliminated the post and had it eliminated from one of the google archives. Others, however, noticed. One of these was John Kerry who, up until that point was advertising on dailykos. Some of Kerry's fans posted anti-link elimination messages on Kerry's site.
Dailykos then posted a non apology apology and blamed others for illuminating his earlier post.
By doing this latter post he basically admitted that his removal of the earlier post did not mean that he disbelieved his own words. This is about as clear a slamdunk case of hypocrisy as you will ever see. Now, it turns out that this hypocrisy is not very important because those who are dailykos fans are not influenced by the fact that it was hypocrisy and neither are the anti dailykos people. Dailykos marginally loses some revenue from the Kerry campaign.
A good place to read the various ins and outs of this is at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003612.php
A few days ago dailykos (a popular left wing blogger - up to 3M hits/day) posted some thoughts about some civilian American causalties. He basically celebrated their death by mutilation deaths. Shortly thereafter, dailykos eliminated the post and had it eliminated from one of the google archives. Others, however, noticed. One of these was John Kerry who, up until that point was advertising on dailykos. Some of Kerry's fans posted anti-link elimination messages on Kerry's site.
Dailykos then posted a non apology apology and blamed others for illuminating his earlier post.
By doing this latter post he basically admitted that his removal of the earlier post did not mean that he disbelieved his own words. This is about as clear a slamdunk case of hypocrisy as you will ever see. Now, it turns out that this hypocrisy is not very important because those who are dailykos fans are not influenced by the fact that it was hypocrisy and neither are the anti dailykos people. Dailykos marginally loses some revenue from the Kerry campaign.
A good place to read the various ins and outs of this is at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003612.php
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Tax Policy
I think the most egregious hypocrisy of the presidential campaign is in the tax policy area.
Candidate Bush ran on a platform of cutting taxes because of a projected surplus. When the projected surplus disappeared, by then President Bush had taxes reduced three times to avoid recession. It seems clear that whatever the situation cutting taxes is the solution. When we had unanticipated expenses because of the 9-11 attack or the Iraq war or the prescription drug benefit these didn't require raising taxes. Its obvious that President Bush simply believes that lower taxes are a public good no matter what the situation. He has, however, not said this. Instead we get doubletalk.
If anything, Senator Kerry is worse. During his nearly two decades as a Senator he never once mentioned the corporate tax rate or the deferral of taxes on income abroad as an issue. Nor did he mention them as an issue when running for the Democratic nomination. Just last week he announced a policy on both of these. He even implied that they would produce 10 million new jobs. Now Senator Kerry realizes full well that these twin initiatives, if implemented, would have only a minimal impact on jobs (and no one can even confidently predict what that would be other than it would be minimal). He also would not have proposed these initiatives during the nomination contest because their complexity, their amibuity, the fuzziness of assigning exeptions to the overall policy would have been impossible to defend during the nomination contest. It seems obvious Kerry does not believe in his own initiatives and is just proposing them to make himself seem like a combination of fiscal conservative and anti off shoring knight.
I think the most egregious hypocrisy of the presidential campaign is in the tax policy area.
Candidate Bush ran on a platform of cutting taxes because of a projected surplus. When the projected surplus disappeared, by then President Bush had taxes reduced three times to avoid recession. It seems clear that whatever the situation cutting taxes is the solution. When we had unanticipated expenses because of the 9-11 attack or the Iraq war or the prescription drug benefit these didn't require raising taxes. Its obvious that President Bush simply believes that lower taxes are a public good no matter what the situation. He has, however, not said this. Instead we get doubletalk.
If anything, Senator Kerry is worse. During his nearly two decades as a Senator he never once mentioned the corporate tax rate or the deferral of taxes on income abroad as an issue. Nor did he mention them as an issue when running for the Democratic nomination. Just last week he announced a policy on both of these. He even implied that they would produce 10 million new jobs. Now Senator Kerry realizes full well that these twin initiatives, if implemented, would have only a minimal impact on jobs (and no one can even confidently predict what that would be other than it would be minimal). He also would not have proposed these initiatives during the nomination contest because their complexity, their amibuity, the fuzziness of assigning exeptions to the overall policy would have been impossible to defend during the nomination contest. It seems obvious Kerry does not believe in his own initiatives and is just proposing them to make himself seem like a combination of fiscal conservative and anti off shoring knight.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Supreme Court Justices
An article in the NY Post at: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/21011.htm
documented the cases of VP Cheny and Justice Scalia who duck hunted together and Justice Ginsberg who lends her name to fundraising activities of the National Organization for Women.
He states that people accuse Scalia of conflict of interest but not Ginsberg. He says that is hypocrisy.
The problem with that claim is that it implies that people are knowingly accusing Scalia but knowingly not accusing Ginsberg. Of course, the fact is that virtually no body knows about the Ginsberg case. It may be that you could claim that the media is deliberately not reporting the Ginsberg case, but I didn't think the NY Post actually makes that claim.
An article in the NY Post at: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/21011.htm
documented the cases of VP Cheny and Justice Scalia who duck hunted together and Justice Ginsberg who lends her name to fundraising activities of the National Organization for Women.
He states that people accuse Scalia of conflict of interest but not Ginsberg. He says that is hypocrisy.
The problem with that claim is that it implies that people are knowingly accusing Scalia but knowingly not accusing Ginsberg. Of course, the fact is that virtually no body knows about the Ginsberg case. It may be that you could claim that the media is deliberately not reporting the Ginsberg case, but I didn't think the NY Post actually makes that claim.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
More on Campaign Ads
A number of new Bush and Kerry ads are out.
An analysis of them is at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2097241/ (the two analysts are both relatively left of center). As expected they don't like the ads much (they dislike Bushes more). Personally, I also dislike political ads but only because they are less entertaining than product ads. However, I noticed that neither analyst claims that either Bush or Kerry is being hypocritical. Instead they are 'misleading' 'vacuous' or 'lying'.
At this point, it seems the analysts have pretty much conceded that it doesn't matter whether the candidates believe what they said, only that the ads be less disgusting (although they both concede that might make them less effective). Bush and Kerry, both being politicians for a number of years, no doubt realize that effective messages must be kept simple and since politics is not simple, the message will always be somewhat misleading. I also feel that both of them are able to believe contradictory proppositions (e.g., Bush can believe that Kerry's health care proposal will require a dollar for dollar tax increase even though Bush's drug insurance proposal required not a single dollar of tax increase). Thus neither candidate's ads could reasonably be said to be hypocritical.
A number of new Bush and Kerry ads are out.
An analysis of them is at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2097241/ (the two analysts are both relatively left of center). As expected they don't like the ads much (they dislike Bushes more). Personally, I also dislike political ads but only because they are less entertaining than product ads. However, I noticed that neither analyst claims that either Bush or Kerry is being hypocritical. Instead they are 'misleading' 'vacuous' or 'lying'.
At this point, it seems the analysts have pretty much conceded that it doesn't matter whether the candidates believe what they said, only that the ads be less disgusting (although they both concede that might make them less effective). Bush and Kerry, both being politicians for a number of years, no doubt realize that effective messages must be kept simple and since politics is not simple, the message will always be somewhat misleading. I also feel that both of them are able to believe contradictory proppositions (e.g., Bush can believe that Kerry's health care proposal will require a dollar for dollar tax increase even though Bush's drug insurance proposal required not a single dollar of tax increase). Thus neither candidate's ads could reasonably be said to be hypocritical.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Campaign Ads.
President Bush has placed a campaign add that strongly implies the Recession began when he first took office. This is almost certainly not hypocrisy because even though current impartial analysis indicates that it began in March 2001 (still could be adjusted), Bush almost certainly believes that the recession was underway in Jan 2001. In any event, its hair splitting. Bush also, in a speech (not an ad), said Kerry introduced a bill to cut the CIA's budget by $1.5 billion; that this would have weakened the agency; and, that the cuts were so egregious that no one even in the Democratic party would co sponser this. This is certainly misleading since at the time the CIA was underspending its budget in one area by $1.5 billion over a 5 year period and Kerry's bill would, essentially have simply taken away unspent funds. The reason no one supported it is that another Democrat had a Republican co sponsor to adjust the budget in a different (more flexible and thus more acceptable to the CIA) way. This probably doesn't reach the hypocrisy threshold only because Bush probably wasn't told all the facts by his staff. If, however, I'm wrong and Bush was told the facts, it would count as hypocrisy since Kerry was not 'weakening the CIA' and Bush would have known it.
President Bush has placed a campaign add that strongly implies the Recession began when he first took office. This is almost certainly not hypocrisy because even though current impartial analysis indicates that it began in March 2001 (still could be adjusted), Bush almost certainly believes that the recession was underway in Jan 2001. In any event, its hair splitting. Bush also, in a speech (not an ad), said Kerry introduced a bill to cut the CIA's budget by $1.5 billion; that this would have weakened the agency; and, that the cuts were so egregious that no one even in the Democratic party would co sponser this. This is certainly misleading since at the time the CIA was underspending its budget in one area by $1.5 billion over a 5 year period and Kerry's bill would, essentially have simply taken away unspent funds. The reason no one supported it is that another Democrat had a Republican co sponsor to adjust the budget in a different (more flexible and thus more acceptable to the CIA) way. This probably doesn't reach the hypocrisy threshold only because Bush probably wasn't told all the facts by his staff. If, however, I'm wrong and Bush was told the facts, it would count as hypocrisy since Kerry was not 'weakening the CIA' and Bush would have known it.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Hypocrisys to keep watching.
Senator John Edwards dropped out of the running for the Democratic nomination. Senator Edwards had been running on an anti free trade platform. I doubt that Senator Edwards actually believed the non sense he was spouting about NAFTA since the mill jobs he prattled on about were being lost long before NAFTA. I never analyzed his hypocrisy.
Senator Kerry has a more nuanced hypocrisy on trade. He voted for NAFTA and GATT but says the Bush administration didn't take the environmental and labor standards provisions seriously. Actually, President Bush has been less free trade than Clinton (steel tarriffs, sugar quotas, mohair subsidies; personnally I think Bush was wrong on these). No one can produce a single anti NAFTA comment by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration. The New York Times produced a delightful comment about Senator Kerry which said that the reason Kerry seems to contradict himself and give convoluted answers is because of nuance (I'm not linking to this because the NY Times comment is drivel). However, on the Trade issue, given that Kerry has legitimate economic advisers it must be obvious to him that his position on trade is hypocritical. At last, a fairly obvious example.
Now lets take same sex marriage. President Bush had been against a constitutional amendment but now is for such an amendment but hasn't any suggested language. This is almost certainly hypocrisy since Bush knows that the exact language is vitally important. Senator Kerry voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act because he said then that it was unconstitutional. He claims now to think the Act is constitutional and is against a US Constitutional amendment that uses language similar to the 1996 Act. He was asked about this by a reporter. The answer was so incoherent that it is unclear just what Senator Kerry believes. However, the gay community believes strongly that when Kerry says 'I am against gay marriage' that he really believes, "I am for gay marriage, I just can't say that so instead I'll oppose a constitutional amendment'. That is, the gay community is for Kerry because of his hypocrisy. Cool.
Senator John Edwards dropped out of the running for the Democratic nomination. Senator Edwards had been running on an anti free trade platform. I doubt that Senator Edwards actually believed the non sense he was spouting about NAFTA since the mill jobs he prattled on about were being lost long before NAFTA. I never analyzed his hypocrisy.
Senator Kerry has a more nuanced hypocrisy on trade. He voted for NAFTA and GATT but says the Bush administration didn't take the environmental and labor standards provisions seriously. Actually, President Bush has been less free trade than Clinton (steel tarriffs, sugar quotas, mohair subsidies; personnally I think Bush was wrong on these). No one can produce a single anti NAFTA comment by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration. The New York Times produced a delightful comment about Senator Kerry which said that the reason Kerry seems to contradict himself and give convoluted answers is because of nuance (I'm not linking to this because the NY Times comment is drivel). However, on the Trade issue, given that Kerry has legitimate economic advisers it must be obvious to him that his position on trade is hypocritical. At last, a fairly obvious example.
Now lets take same sex marriage. President Bush had been against a constitutional amendment but now is for such an amendment but hasn't any suggested language. This is almost certainly hypocrisy since Bush knows that the exact language is vitally important. Senator Kerry voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act because he said then that it was unconstitutional. He claims now to think the Act is constitutional and is against a US Constitutional amendment that uses language similar to the 1996 Act. He was asked about this by a reporter. The answer was so incoherent that it is unclear just what Senator Kerry believes. However, the gay community believes strongly that when Kerry says 'I am against gay marriage' that he really believes, "I am for gay marriage, I just can't say that so instead I'll oppose a constitutional amendment'. That is, the gay community is for Kerry because of his hypocrisy. Cool.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
TNR defends Kerry against the charge of hypocrisy
In this article:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040301&s=trb030104
The New Republic writer Peter Beinart defends Senator John Kerry against the charge of being a hypocrite.
As with typical articles in this magazine, it is a very literate, very detailed defense. However, nowhere in the article is there a statement of who is charging Kerry with being a hypocrite. The republicans, evidently released a commercial (I've not seen it) which charges Kerry with being unprincipled because Kerry has taken a lot of special interest money. Unprincipled does not equal hypocritical. TNR also uses some clever typology definitions of special interests. They define some of the special interests that donated funds to Kerry as 'less special' than the special interests that donated to President Bush. They also make the interesting comparison that special interests gave more money to Bush than to Kerry. This is logically irrelevent. It doesn't make me less of a hypocrite just because someone else is a hypocrite.
Sometime earlier, the Washington Post listed Kerry positions on foreign intervention. They did so at this site:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040301&s=trb030104
The Washington Post noted that Kerry had been against the first Gulf War, then for the Bosnia action, then for the 2nd gulf war, then criticized it, then supported it, then opposed funding it. The Washington Post never accused Kerry of hypocrisy nor did they point out that Kerry may conveniently believe whatever he thinks will be popular in his State of Massachusetts. The latter effect isn't hypocrisy, its just weak mindedness.
In this article:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040301&s=trb030104
The New Republic writer Peter Beinart defends Senator John Kerry against the charge of being a hypocrite.
As with typical articles in this magazine, it is a very literate, very detailed defense. However, nowhere in the article is there a statement of who is charging Kerry with being a hypocrite. The republicans, evidently released a commercial (I've not seen it) which charges Kerry with being unprincipled because Kerry has taken a lot of special interest money. Unprincipled does not equal hypocritical. TNR also uses some clever typology definitions of special interests. They define some of the special interests that donated funds to Kerry as 'less special' than the special interests that donated to President Bush. They also make the interesting comparison that special interests gave more money to Bush than to Kerry. This is logically irrelevent. It doesn't make me less of a hypocrite just because someone else is a hypocrite.
Sometime earlier, the Washington Post listed Kerry positions on foreign intervention. They did so at this site:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040301&s=trb030104
The Washington Post noted that Kerry had been against the first Gulf War, then for the Bosnia action, then for the 2nd gulf war, then criticized it, then supported it, then opposed funding it. The Washington Post never accused Kerry of hypocrisy nor did they point out that Kerry may conveniently believe whatever he thinks will be popular in his State of Massachusetts. The latter effect isn't hypocrisy, its just weak mindedness.
Friday, February 13, 2004
The Media Chasing of Bush and Laying off of Kerry
At the website:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/index.htm#postid273
A radio host (Hug Hewitt) and columnist (generally a conservative) charges the media with hypocrisy. His argument was that big media went after Bush on the National Guard AWOL charges with everything they had but laid off the Kerry-Intern charge and that because there was no factual support for either, this constitutes hypocrisy.
I'm not so sure. Mr. Hewitt is persuasive in saying that big media gave disparate treatment to the two situations. However, the Kerry-Intern charges were only a few days old at the time. More importantly, Mr. Hewitt claims that big media is biased against Bush. The charge of bias actually is a defense of sorts against the charge of hypocrisy. The reason is that if big media believe that Bush should be smeared, they are doing exactly what they believe in. Actually, the hypocrisy is something else, that is the big media pretending to be neutral when they are not.
At the website:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/index.htm#postid273
A radio host (Hug Hewitt) and columnist (generally a conservative) charges the media with hypocrisy. His argument was that big media went after Bush on the National Guard AWOL charges with everything they had but laid off the Kerry-Intern charge and that because there was no factual support for either, this constitutes hypocrisy.
I'm not so sure. Mr. Hewitt is persuasive in saying that big media gave disparate treatment to the two situations. However, the Kerry-Intern charges were only a few days old at the time. More importantly, Mr. Hewitt claims that big media is biased against Bush. The charge of bias actually is a defense of sorts against the charge of hypocrisy. The reason is that if big media believe that Bush should be smeared, they are doing exactly what they believe in. Actually, the hypocrisy is something else, that is the big media pretending to be neutral when they are not.
Monday, February 02, 2004
CBS/MTV shows the breast superbowl halftime ever
Yesterday, during halftime of the superbowl, Janet Jackson's breast was exposed. Today, CBS, MTV (the producing company) and the performers involved are saying it was unplanned.
see: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040201/nysu032_1.html
and
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484738/20040201/jackson_janet.jhtml?headlines=true
it is obvious that the Ms Jackson's wardrobe was specifically designed to show the breast and she wore a pasty on the nipple which is not typical regularwear. In addition the pregame announcement promised a shocking surprize.
see: http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:fdY9BmfrFS0J:www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484644/20040128/jackson_janet.jhtml%3Fheadlines%3Dtrue+janet+jackson+shocking+moments&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8
Conclusion - hypocrisy but the level is minimal. Ms Jackson has shown her breasts (both) before, granted that this was during prime time and children were watching but, really, these are entertainers - they are supposed to entertain and these entertainers aren't that bright either. No one should expect them to be guardians of morality.
Yesterday, during halftime of the superbowl, Janet Jackson's breast was exposed. Today, CBS, MTV (the producing company) and the performers involved are saying it was unplanned.
see: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040201/nysu032_1.html
and
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484738/20040201/jackson_janet.jhtml?headlines=true
it is obvious that the Ms Jackson's wardrobe was specifically designed to show the breast and she wore a pasty on the nipple which is not typical regularwear. In addition the pregame announcement promised a shocking surprize.
see: http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:fdY9BmfrFS0J:www.mtv.com/news/articles/1484644/20040128/jackson_janet.jhtml%3Fheadlines%3Dtrue+janet+jackson+shocking+moments&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8
Conclusion - hypocrisy but the level is minimal. Ms Jackson has shown her breasts (both) before, granted that this was during prime time and children were watching but, really, these are entertainers - they are supposed to entertain and these entertainers aren't that bright either. No one should expect them to be guardians of morality.
Kerry calls the Pot Black
The Washington Post had a devestating and detailed article on the record of Senator Kerry regarding the taking of funds from lobbyists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64727-2004Jan30.html
Apparently, the Senator, who intends his presidential campaign (assuming nomination) to be against the special interests, has taken more funds from lobbyists than any other Senator in the past 15 years (since records have been collected).
He can defend against the charge of hypocrisy only by saying that he will attack the special interests irrespective of the fact that they have given him money. This, however, brings up the charge of hypocrisy in his dealings with individual special interests who must have been lead to believe that Kerry's Senatorial work would, in some way help him. Of course whatever discussions took place would be unknown and not publically discoverable.
The Washington Post had a devestating and detailed article on the record of Senator Kerry regarding the taking of funds from lobbyists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64727-2004Jan30.html
Apparently, the Senator, who intends his presidential campaign (assuming nomination) to be against the special interests, has taken more funds from lobbyists than any other Senator in the past 15 years (since records have been collected).
He can defend against the charge of hypocrisy only by saying that he will attack the special interests irrespective of the fact that they have given him money. This, however, brings up the charge of hypocrisy in his dealings with individual special interests who must have been lead to believe that Kerry's Senatorial work would, in some way help him. Of course whatever discussions took place would be unknown and not publically discoverable.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Michael Moore endorses Clark
I've done a number of posts on the hypocrisy of General Wesley Clark. Now one of his supporters has a hypocrisy problem of his own. Michael Moore, movie maker and noted extreme leftist has endorsed Clark. As Slate notes, at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094210/ , the Michel Moore movie "bowling for Columbine" has harsh criticism of the US actions in the balkens in the late 90s. These actions were led by General Wesley Clark. Michael Moore has just endorsed Clark. Apparently, Moore says that 'well thats all in the past' or words to that effect. I doubt whether Moore actually believes that so either he was pretending to critize the Balken efforts back then or he is lying now. This is an interesting case also because Moore's endorsement of Clark probably hurts Clark more than it helps him.
I've done a number of posts on the hypocrisy of General Wesley Clark. Now one of his supporters has a hypocrisy problem of his own. Michael Moore, movie maker and noted extreme leftist has endorsed Clark. As Slate notes, at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094210/ , the Michel Moore movie "bowling for Columbine" has harsh criticism of the US actions in the balkens in the late 90s. These actions were led by General Wesley Clark. Michael Moore has just endorsed Clark. Apparently, Moore says that 'well thats all in the past' or words to that effect. I doubt whether Moore actually believes that so either he was pretending to critize the Balken efforts back then or he is lying now. This is an interesting case also because Moore's endorsement of Clark probably hurts Clark more than it helps him.
Monday, January 12, 2004
More on Wesley Clark
A Slate reporter has been following General Clark in New Hampshire.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2093825/
Apparently, Clark continues to say things that seem crazy, for example that President Bush didn't try to get Osama Bin Laden. It seems impossible to imagine that Clark really believes in such things. This makes it an open and shut case of hypocrisy. I was trying to think well of Clark but he is preventing me from doing this. Arrrgh.
A Slate reporter has been following General Clark in New Hampshire.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2093825/
Apparently, Clark continues to say things that seem crazy, for example that President Bush didn't try to get Osama Bin Laden. It seems impossible to imagine that Clark really believes in such things. This makes it an open and shut case of hypocrisy. I was trying to think well of Clark but he is preventing me from doing this. Arrrgh.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
More on Governor Dean's changing Relationship with God
A New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/politics/campaigns/04DEAN.html
Gives a cynical view of Governor Dean's new relationship with God. The article doesn't come out and accuse Dean of faking an interest in religion but implies it. One amusing note was that Dean was asked his favorite book of the New Testament, answered "Job" and it took an hour before he realized (no doubt one of his aides helped him) that Job isn't in the NT. By the end of the article it is obvious that when Dean says, "Religion is a big part of my life" he doesn't mean it. So the hypocrisy charge that I dismissed a few days ago is reinstated.
A New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/politics/campaigns/04DEAN.html
Gives a cynical view of Governor Dean's new relationship with God. The article doesn't come out and accuse Dean of faking an interest in religion but implies it. One amusing note was that Dean was asked his favorite book of the New Testament, answered "Job" and it took an hour before he realized (no doubt one of his aides helped him) that Job isn't in the NT. By the end of the article it is obvious that when Dean says, "Religion is a big part of my life" he doesn't mean it. So the hypocrisy charge that I dismissed a few days ago is reinstated.
Friday, January 02, 2004
Howard Dean's Relationship with God
It now is well known that Former Governor Howard Dean quit one Christian denomination and joined another because of a problem with his old Church's position on a bike path. It is also well known that he doesn't attend church services. It is also well known that he has said he doesn't want to let the Republicans talk about Guns, God and Gays in the south. The New Republic had an article basically saying that his position would lead to electoral defeat in the south. A few days later, Dean said he believes in God and would talk about God when he campaigned in the south. Is this hypocrisy.
What specifically is the hypocrisy? Does Dean not believe in God while saying he believes in God? or more likely, does Dean think southerners who believe in God aren't very bright but avoids saying this to avoid offending them? I think the latter is more likely and if so, it is a case of hypocrisy by silence which is not formally hypocrisy the way I defined it.
The Washington Post style section today has a story from a reporter following the Dean campaign in S Carolina at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48313-2004Jan1.html
The story mentions the religion issue. The story also indicates that Dean is not 'resonating' in S Carolina and he is not bible thumping either. So even if it were hypocrisy it would be minimal and minimally important.
It now is well known that Former Governor Howard Dean quit one Christian denomination and joined another because of a problem with his old Church's position on a bike path. It is also well known that he doesn't attend church services. It is also well known that he has said he doesn't want to let the Republicans talk about Guns, God and Gays in the south. The New Republic had an article basically saying that his position would lead to electoral defeat in the south. A few days later, Dean said he believes in God and would talk about God when he campaigned in the south. Is this hypocrisy.
What specifically is the hypocrisy? Does Dean not believe in God while saying he believes in God? or more likely, does Dean think southerners who believe in God aren't very bright but avoids saying this to avoid offending them? I think the latter is more likely and if so, it is a case of hypocrisy by silence which is not formally hypocrisy the way I defined it.
The Washington Post style section today has a story from a reporter following the Dean campaign in S Carolina at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48313-2004Jan1.html
The story mentions the religion issue. The story also indicates that Dean is not 'resonating' in S Carolina and he is not bible thumping either. So even if it were hypocrisy it would be minimal and minimally important.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Nuclear Weapons for the US but not for N Korea - Am I a hypocrite?
Well today I was reading a piece by a left wing historian and full professor (I forgot the name or where I read the thing) who blamed the US for the Korean war, for N Korea's poverty, for lots of similar things and I found myself disliking what he said and wondering why a nut like this gets to be a full professor. The fellow went on to say that it was hypocrisy to say that the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea shouldn't.
Well, I think the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea shouldn't.
Am I a hypocrite?
In once sense I certainly am not, I'm not pretending to believe what I don't believe nor to say something I don't believe.
On the other hand, I am certainly being hypocritical. I think that the reason the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea should not is because I think the US is basically good and that N Korea is basically bad. However, I don't think every country that is basically good should have nuclear weapons. Should Costa Rico have nuclear weapons? Should the Fuji Islands? Should Denmark? No. No and No. But this is where it gets complicated. I think a problem with nuclear weapons is that they can be stolen or damaged even in a good country and there is always the chance these countries may go bad. So my hypocrisy is only because I like to maintain the simple good/bad argument even though I recognize there is more complexity than this.
Well today I was reading a piece by a left wing historian and full professor (I forgot the name or where I read the thing) who blamed the US for the Korean war, for N Korea's poverty, for lots of similar things and I found myself disliking what he said and wondering why a nut like this gets to be a full professor. The fellow went on to say that it was hypocrisy to say that the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea shouldn't.
Well, I think the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea shouldn't.
Am I a hypocrite?
In once sense I certainly am not, I'm not pretending to believe what I don't believe nor to say something I don't believe.
On the other hand, I am certainly being hypocritical. I think that the reason the US should have nuclear weapons and N Korea should not is because I think the US is basically good and that N Korea is basically bad. However, I don't think every country that is basically good should have nuclear weapons. Should Costa Rico have nuclear weapons? Should the Fuji Islands? Should Denmark? No. No and No. But this is where it gets complicated. I think a problem with nuclear weapons is that they can be stolen or damaged even in a good country and there is always the chance these countries may go bad. So my hypocrisy is only because I like to maintain the simple good/bad argument even though I recognize there is more complexity than this.
Monday, December 22, 2003
John Bradley does it for the money
LGF posts today about a strange case (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php)
-----------------------------------
A Completely Crime Free Environment
On July 29, 2002, Arab News editor John R. Bradley left this (now famous) comment at LGF:
I’m off for a stroll down Jeddah’s fabulous Corniche, the longest in the world and a kind of open air museum peppered with famous, giant-size sculptures. At dusk the largest fountain in the world bursts into life. Ordinary families settle down to have picnics. Polite smiles and hellos from strangers. A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . . .
Today the Washington Times has a piece about soaring crime rates in Saudi Arabia, and it’s written by ... wait ... that can’t be John R. “Crime Free Environment” Bradley’s byline, can it? Saudis confront soaring crime.
The days when Saudis could leave their homes unlocked, even when they went on vacation, are long gone. Thieves have taken to robbing whole apartments, after brazenly parking a van in the street outside.
----------------------------------------------
LGF speculates that the Arab News may have liked his 'crime free' spin in July when he was working for them and the Washington Times liked his 'crime increasing' spin in December.
This is hypocrisy by omission, which is not actually hypocrisy by the definition I first advanced.
LGF posts today about a strange case (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php)
-----------------------------------
A Completely Crime Free Environment
On July 29, 2002, Arab News editor John R. Bradley left this (now famous) comment at LGF:
I’m off for a stroll down Jeddah’s fabulous Corniche, the longest in the world and a kind of open air museum peppered with famous, giant-size sculptures. At dusk the largest fountain in the world bursts into life. Ordinary families settle down to have picnics. Polite smiles and hellos from strangers. A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . . .
Today the Washington Times has a piece about soaring crime rates in Saudi Arabia, and it’s written by ... wait ... that can’t be John R. “Crime Free Environment” Bradley’s byline, can it? Saudis confront soaring crime.
The days when Saudis could leave their homes unlocked, even when they went on vacation, are long gone. Thieves have taken to robbing whole apartments, after brazenly parking a van in the street outside.
----------------------------------------------
LGF speculates that the Arab News may have liked his 'crime free' spin in July when he was working for them and the Washington Times liked his 'crime increasing' spin in December.
This is hypocrisy by omission, which is not actually hypocrisy by the definition I first advanced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)