Gannon - Hypocrisy or Nothingate
A report for the on line publication Talon was discovered to be working under an assumed name and to have previously owned an escort service for gays. He asked softball questions at two press conferences. A number of left wing bloggers have cited the failure of right wing bloggers to denouce this fellow as hypocrisy. An example of such a left wing blog is: http://www.unknownnews.net/050212d-11bn.html
A blog that is further right than unknownnews.net is: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/james_guckert_t.html
which has a lot on Gannon.
I can't quite understand what the hypocrisy is here.
Is it that right wing blogs are supposed to hate gays but don't denounce Gannon. That seems obviously a false inference. Many right wing blogs are libertarian and support gay civil unions and even gay marriage. Very few of the right wing bloggers are for disenfranchisement of gays (I can't think of a single one).
Or it could be that right wing blogs should be against reporters asking soft ball questions at press conferences (these are conferences with the press secretary, not with the President btw). I can't understand how this could be very important. No one even pays much attention to any press conference that doesn't have the President or S of State, Defense or Treasury.
Or it could be that right wing blogs should be against anyone without 'pure' reporter creditials getting a press pass. I don't get this either. The press pass was to several more-or-less meaningless press secretary events.
So basically, I can't figure out the hypocrisy.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Hypocrisy in the 1958 movie "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"
When I came home from work, Ann had this movie on. In one of the scenes, the plantation magnate, "Big Daddy", played by Burl Ives (Elizabeth Taylor plays his daughter in law Paul Newman plays his son), says that he hates the hypocrisy he was forced to live with every day. He later expanded on that. He hated pretending to love a wife he hated. He hated pretending to listen to church sermons that he found boring. He hated pretending to be interested in charitable causes. But obviously he did it because it was necessary and had he not done so, his image would have been tarnished and thus his power would have been tarnished. Essentially, this is what I have previously defined as a type 1 hypocrisy - with maybe a tiny bit of type 2 mixed in.
Ironically, this movie removed the references to homosexuality that were in the screen play as well as the obscenity in the screen play -- also because it was necessary -- and the playwright, Tennessee Williams, himself an obscenity spouting homosexual, hated that. Also, ironically, the acknowledged brilliant role of Burl Ives did not win an Oscar that year. Ives received an Oscar a few years later for a much less important and distinguished role.
When I came home from work, Ann had this movie on. In one of the scenes, the plantation magnate, "Big Daddy", played by Burl Ives (Elizabeth Taylor plays his daughter in law Paul Newman plays his son), says that he hates the hypocrisy he was forced to live with every day. He later expanded on that. He hated pretending to love a wife he hated. He hated pretending to listen to church sermons that he found boring. He hated pretending to be interested in charitable causes. But obviously he did it because it was necessary and had he not done so, his image would have been tarnished and thus his power would have been tarnished. Essentially, this is what I have previously defined as a type 1 hypocrisy - with maybe a tiny bit of type 2 mixed in.
Ironically, this movie removed the references to homosexuality that were in the screen play as well as the obscenity in the screen play -- also because it was necessary -- and the playwright, Tennessee Williams, himself an obscenity spouting homosexual, hated that. Also, ironically, the acknowledged brilliant role of Burl Ives did not win an Oscar that year. Ives received an Oscar a few years later for a much less important and distinguished role.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
A Defeat for Hypocrisy - Sort of
Today, former Governor Howard Dean was elected as chair of the democratic national committee. A number of democrats are unhappy because Governor Dean is linked with the maximalist position on abortion and close to the maximalist position on gay rights and close to the minimalist position on defense, etc. These are known to be the positions of the activists in the democratic party so, it seems to me that the people against Dean wanted to disguise the nature of their party while the people for Dean wanted to make the nature of the party explicit in its chair. Since the latter won, it is, in some sense, a defeat for hypocrisy.
Yet, Governor Dean is not quite ready to go totally against hypocrisy. He has said that while democrats should stick to their positions they should phrase their positions differently, e.g. instead of saying 'we're pro choice' (or pro abortion rights), they should say 'we favor woman's health options', instead of saying 'we're for gay marriage', they should say, 'we are for expanding human rights'. So, even while hypocrisy has lost a battle, it still hasn't lost the war.
Today, former Governor Howard Dean was elected as chair of the democratic national committee. A number of democrats are unhappy because Governor Dean is linked with the maximalist position on abortion and close to the maximalist position on gay rights and close to the minimalist position on defense, etc. These are known to be the positions of the activists in the democratic party so, it seems to me that the people against Dean wanted to disguise the nature of their party while the people for Dean wanted to make the nature of the party explicit in its chair. Since the latter won, it is, in some sense, a defeat for hypocrisy.
Yet, Governor Dean is not quite ready to go totally against hypocrisy. He has said that while democrats should stick to their positions they should phrase their positions differently, e.g. instead of saying 'we're pro choice' (or pro abortion rights), they should say 'we favor woman's health options', instead of saying 'we're for gay marriage', they should say, 'we are for expanding human rights'. So, even while hypocrisy has lost a battle, it still hasn't lost the war.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
The hypocrisy hangs thick in the air:
So says Paul Cella a blogger at: http://cellasreview.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_cellasreview_archive.html#110422961948727439
Mr. Cella also refers to a blog posting by Colby Cosh at: http://colbycosh.com/#rwgb
basically, the argument is that the obits for Reggie White, all star football lineman who died of an aphnia induced heart attack, stress that Mr. White 'tarnished his image' by calling "... homosexuality as "one of the biggest sins in the Bible" and stereotyping races (i.e. blacks are thus, whites are thus).
It is difficult at this point to know what Mr. White meant back in the 90s when he made these comments but it is clear that it was the media not Mr. White who 'tarnished' his image. The media could certainly have played down the comments or not reported the comments or reported the comments but indicated that they didn't know what Mr. White meant. Thus, I don't think that the media (the AP and the Chicago Trib are cited by mssrs Cella and Cosh) are being hypocrites so much as they are being sloppy.
Similarly, Cella and Cosh say the media does not say that black rappers who use homobashing lyrics have 'tarnished' their image. In this case, I'll side with the media because the rappers 'image' is their lyrics - they have no other image. I think Cella and Cosh would be correct if they said that the media is wrong, or deliquent when it fails to report the homobashing lyrics but that doesn't create hypocrisy.
So says Paul Cella a blogger at: http://cellasreview.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_cellasreview_archive.html#110422961948727439
Mr. Cella also refers to a blog posting by Colby Cosh at: http://colbycosh.com/#rwgb
basically, the argument is that the obits for Reggie White, all star football lineman who died of an aphnia induced heart attack, stress that Mr. White 'tarnished his image' by calling "... homosexuality as "one of the biggest sins in the Bible" and stereotyping races (i.e. blacks are thus, whites are thus).
It is difficult at this point to know what Mr. White meant back in the 90s when he made these comments but it is clear that it was the media not Mr. White who 'tarnished' his image. The media could certainly have played down the comments or not reported the comments or reported the comments but indicated that they didn't know what Mr. White meant. Thus, I don't think that the media (the AP and the Chicago Trib are cited by mssrs Cella and Cosh) are being hypocrites so much as they are being sloppy.
Similarly, Cella and Cosh say the media does not say that black rappers who use homobashing lyrics have 'tarnished' their image. In this case, I'll side with the media because the rappers 'image' is their lyrics - they have no other image. I think Cella and Cosh would be correct if they said that the media is wrong, or deliquent when it fails to report the homobashing lyrics but that doesn't create hypocrisy.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Was Hypocrisy on the Ballot Yesterday
I read someone on line who said that people who voted for Bush assumed that he was sincere when he said he wanted to fight terrorism and win the conflict in Iraq while people who voted for Kerry assumed he was a hypocrite when he said he wanted to fight terrorism and win the conflict in Iraq.
One could also assume that some people voted for Kerry because they assumed he was a hypocrite when he said he was against gay marriage and abortion.
I don't doubt that some people did this (especially on Iraq and gay marriage). However, I expect more people who voted for Kerry did so out of a general dissatisfaction or unease or fear. Thus I don't consider the election to have been a referendum on hypocrisy.
I read someone on line who said that people who voted for Bush assumed that he was sincere when he said he wanted to fight terrorism and win the conflict in Iraq while people who voted for Kerry assumed he was a hypocrite when he said he wanted to fight terrorism and win the conflict in Iraq.
One could also assume that some people voted for Kerry because they assumed he was a hypocrite when he said he was against gay marriage and abortion.
I don't doubt that some people did this (especially on Iraq and gay marriage). However, I expect more people who voted for Kerry did so out of a general dissatisfaction or unease or fear. Thus I don't consider the election to have been a referendum on hypocrisy.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Movies and TV shows - is there a difference
A movie that is said to be anti Kerry will be shown on several TV stations this month.
This is the website for Stolen Valor: http://www.stolenvalor.com/foia.HTM
A movie that was obviously anti Bush was shown in numerous movie studios 3 months ago (and will be shown on pay for view later this month). The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is trying to have the broadcast of the TV stations stopped.
Is this hypocrisy?
First off, it is not clear to me whether there is a legal difference between a movie and a TV show. Secondly, it is now much closer to an election than when the movie came out. The DNC action is based on the argument that the TV show is an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. The DNC does not address (at least not yet) the issue of whether the movie was an in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign.
I'll wait until they address this before I think this through the rest of the way.
- Ultimately the anti Kerry program wasn't shown on TV - I went to the site and watched a few minutes - the movie did not have good production values and probably wouldn't have been very effective.
A movie that is said to be anti Kerry will be shown on several TV stations this month.
This is the website for Stolen Valor: http://www.stolenvalor.com/foia.HTM
A movie that was obviously anti Bush was shown in numerous movie studios 3 months ago (and will be shown on pay for view later this month). The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is trying to have the broadcast of the TV stations stopped.
Is this hypocrisy?
First off, it is not clear to me whether there is a legal difference between a movie and a TV show. Secondly, it is now much closer to an election than when the movie came out. The DNC action is based on the argument that the TV show is an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. The DNC does not address (at least not yet) the issue of whether the movie was an in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign.
I'll wait until they address this before I think this through the rest of the way.
- Ultimately the anti Kerry program wasn't shown on TV - I went to the site and watched a few minutes - the movie did not have good production values and probably wouldn't have been very effective.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Zell Miller - Occupation vs Liberation
In his speech yesterday, Senator Zell Miller (who by the way was the first person to be the keynote speaker at both a Democratic and a Republican convention), said that when Senator Kerry referred to American troops in Iraq (I think he meant Iraq) as occupiers and not liberators, it made Miller angry. It has been documented that President Bush also used the phrase 'occupiers'. Now:
1. I can't remember Kerry ever using the expression and Miller didn't say when he said it
2. When Bush used the phrase 'occupiers' it was before an Iraq govt was sworn in on June 29.
I doubt that Miller is actually angry about the use of the word 'occupier'. Miller knows that our troops were both liberators and occupiers (although the latter was done out of necessity because of the former). Thus he is undoubtedly a hypocrit.
Furthermore there were other things Miller said that were either clearly things he didn't believe or else greatly exaggerated. A site that gives a summary is at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2106119/
However, the only thing this shows is that he was angry. Frankly, his presence and his demeanor were more angry than his words. Thus the hypocrisy only rises to a level 2.
In his speech yesterday, Senator Zell Miller (who by the way was the first person to be the keynote speaker at both a Democratic and a Republican convention), said that when Senator Kerry referred to American troops in Iraq (I think he meant Iraq) as occupiers and not liberators, it made Miller angry. It has been documented that President Bush also used the phrase 'occupiers'. Now:
1. I can't remember Kerry ever using the expression and Miller didn't say when he said it
2. When Bush used the phrase 'occupiers' it was before an Iraq govt was sworn in on June 29.
I doubt that Miller is actually angry about the use of the word 'occupier'. Miller knows that our troops were both liberators and occupiers (although the latter was done out of necessity because of the former). Thus he is undoubtedly a hypocrit.
Furthermore there were other things Miller said that were either clearly things he didn't believe or else greatly exaggerated. A site that gives a summary is at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2106119/
However, the only thing this shows is that he was angry. Frankly, his presence and his demeanor were more angry than his words. Thus the hypocrisy only rises to a level 2.
Friday, August 27, 2004
NY Post on the 527 Hypocrisy
The NY Post today had an article titled "Hypocrisy, thy name is Kerry" which has more details on the people in the Kerry Campaign who have connections to the 527 organizations. This relates to my post yesterday on this subject.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/27551.htm
A more comprehensive article on the same thing, also today, is at:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Vote2004/527_groups_040825-1.html
and a followup op ed in the Washington Post at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50985-2004Aug31.html
The NY Post today had an article titled "Hypocrisy, thy name is Kerry" which has more details on the people in the Kerry Campaign who have connections to the 527 organizations. This relates to my post yesterday on this subject.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/27551.htm
A more comprehensive article on the same thing, also today, is at:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Vote2004/527_groups_040825-1.html
and a followup op ed in the Washington Post at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50985-2004Aug31.html
Thursday, August 26, 2004
527s
Yesterday, former Senator (and current board member of the Ex-Im bank- appointed by GWB no less) went to Texas to complain about the ads that the SwiftVeteransforTruth was running and to complain that the group is a tool of the Bush campaign. As has been noted by several bloggers, most notably NZBear of http://www.truthlaidbear.com/ in his Aug 24-26, 2004 postings, the 527 organizations that support Kerry have spent about 100 times more money than the SwiftVets and furthermore, the connections between the Kerry campaign the the anti Bush 527s is far more robust than the connection between the SwiftVets and the Bush campaign.
So we have a slamdunk case of the Kerry campaign complaining about tactics that they use themselves (and use more than the stuff they are complaining about).
So what type of hypocrisy is it?
Well, I'm thinking it is about a 2. Many people, maybe most, can see the hypocrisy. In some ways it is completely self correcting because it shows the flaws of the campaign reform act that allowed the 527 loophole (the number being the clause in the law allowing these organizations to place TV ads).
Yesterday, former Senator (and current board member of the Ex-Im bank- appointed by GWB no less) went to Texas to complain about the ads that the SwiftVeteransforTruth was running and to complain that the group is a tool of the Bush campaign. As has been noted by several bloggers, most notably NZBear of http://www.truthlaidbear.com/ in his Aug 24-26, 2004 postings, the 527 organizations that support Kerry have spent about 100 times more money than the SwiftVets and furthermore, the connections between the Kerry campaign the the anti Bush 527s is far more robust than the connection between the SwiftVets and the Bush campaign.
So we have a slamdunk case of the Kerry campaign complaining about tactics that they use themselves (and use more than the stuff they are complaining about).
So what type of hypocrisy is it?
Well, I'm thinking it is about a 2. Many people, maybe most, can see the hypocrisy. In some ways it is completely self correcting because it shows the flaws of the campaign reform act that allowed the 527 loophole (the number being the clause in the law allowing these organizations to place TV ads).
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
The US Government is Advising Me on Being a Hypocrite
at: http://www.theantidrug.com/marijuana/sayno.asp
is an article that begins, "Marijuana: How to Tell Your Kids to Say No, Even if You Didn't"
The article basically says that even though parents took marijuana, they should tell their own children not to take marijuana. The article goes into some detail about what to do when the next generation calls the previous generation 'hypocrites'.
" ...What if you are afraid of sounding like a hypocrite? "Do as I say, not as I do" has never been a good method of parenting. Parents can emphasize that this discussion is about your child's future, and not about your past. Even if you..."
First thing to realize is that if I now believe they shouldn't smoke marijuana and say "I believe you shouldn't smoke marijuana", that is not hypocrisy. If I believed that smoking marijuana was not harmful and said "it is harmful", now that would be hypocrisy.
The other thing to say about the ad is that it states that marijuana now is stronger than marijuana back in the 60s and 70s. I've heard this said but I have no way of verifying it. Thus, frankly, on this subject, I am too ignorant to be a hypocrite, no matter what my government thinks.
at: http://www.theantidrug.com/marijuana/sayno.asp
is an article that begins, "Marijuana: How to Tell Your Kids to Say No, Even if You Didn't"
The article basically says that even though parents took marijuana, they should tell their own children not to take marijuana. The article goes into some detail about what to do when the next generation calls the previous generation 'hypocrites'.
" ...What if you are afraid of sounding like a hypocrite? "Do as I say, not as I do" has never been a good method of parenting. Parents can emphasize that this discussion is about your child's future, and not about your past. Even if you..."
First thing to realize is that if I now believe they shouldn't smoke marijuana and say "I believe you shouldn't smoke marijuana", that is not hypocrisy. If I believed that smoking marijuana was not harmful and said "it is harmful", now that would be hypocrisy.
The other thing to say about the ad is that it states that marijuana now is stronger than marijuana back in the 60s and 70s. I've heard this said but I have no way of verifying it. Thus, frankly, on this subject, I am too ignorant to be a hypocrite, no matter what my government thinks.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Kerry and Energy Independence
Apparently, Sen John Kerry is making speeches about the US achieving energy independence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/07/politics/campaign/07energy.html?ei=5090&en=022a8d4b7907d6c0&ex=1249531200&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=
Obviously this is a case of hypocrisy since his advisors realize he doesn't mean it (they say so in the article). The fact that this hypocrisy is acceptable is a sign that, yes, people are willing to admit that some hypocrisy is innocuous.
Now if this were the only Kerry hypocrisy I would agree. Unfortunately it isn't.
Apparently, Sen John Kerry is making speeches about the US achieving energy independence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/07/politics/campaign/07energy.html?ei=5090&en=022a8d4b7907d6c0&ex=1249531200&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=
Obviously this is a case of hypocrisy since his advisors realize he doesn't mean it (they say so in the article). The fact that this hypocrisy is acceptable is a sign that, yes, people are willing to admit that some hypocrisy is innocuous.
Now if this were the only Kerry hypocrisy I would agree. Unfortunately it isn't.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Dem vs. Rep Hypocrisy
Michelle Cottle had an article in the on line version (June 18, 2004)of the New Republic back in June. I have just gotten to it and today I can't find it on line.
The article states that people in the D and R parties have different ways of looking at hypocrisy. Democrats think of it as the worst of crimes, i.e., Rush Limbaugh can not be criticized for doing oxycontin; instead he must be criticized for preaching against drug abuse on the radio while abusing drugs in his own life. Republicans don't care as much about hypocrisy; they care more about people's views on sin.
The article is well reasoned and well written but I think wrongly premised.
The premise that democrats think hypocrisy the worst of crimes would lead to a criticism of Ralph Nader for violation of campaign finance rules. Cottle notes this and says 'it will be interesting to see... will cause him any lingering grief. Now, after more than a month, it is clear that it hasn't caused Nader any grief whatsoever. It seems the premise, namely, that Democrats think hypocrisy the worst of crimes, is not true.
What seems more likely is that Democrats think hypocrisy in Republicans is the worst that they can be charged with but think hypocrisy in Democrats, unless it is obvious, is unimportant.
For example (this is in Demthink), George Bush's budget busting actions are horrible while John Kerry's views on abortion, while I think obviously hypocritical are unimportant.
Similarly, Republicans think hypocrisy in Democrats is a serious crime (maybe not as serious as sin itself), but that hypocrisy in Republicans is unimportant.
For example (this is in Repthink), John Kerry's views on abortion are hypocritical and awful, but even worse is his support for abortion. George Bush's budget busting actions were necessary and the dems would have done it anyway.
Michelle Cottle had an article in the on line version (June 18, 2004)of the New Republic back in June. I have just gotten to it and today I can't find it on line.
The article states that people in the D and R parties have different ways of looking at hypocrisy. Democrats think of it as the worst of crimes, i.e., Rush Limbaugh can not be criticized for doing oxycontin; instead he must be criticized for preaching against drug abuse on the radio while abusing drugs in his own life. Republicans don't care as much about hypocrisy; they care more about people's views on sin.
The article is well reasoned and well written but I think wrongly premised.
The premise that democrats think hypocrisy the worst of crimes would lead to a criticism of Ralph Nader for violation of campaign finance rules. Cottle notes this and says 'it will be interesting to see... will cause him any lingering grief. Now, after more than a month, it is clear that it hasn't caused Nader any grief whatsoever. It seems the premise, namely, that Democrats think hypocrisy the worst of crimes, is not true.
What seems more likely is that Democrats think hypocrisy in Republicans is the worst that they can be charged with but think hypocrisy in Democrats, unless it is obvious, is unimportant.
For example (this is in Demthink), George Bush's budget busting actions are horrible while John Kerry's views on abortion, while I think obviously hypocritical are unimportant.
Similarly, Republicans think hypocrisy in Democrats is a serious crime (maybe not as serious as sin itself), but that hypocrisy in Republicans is unimportant.
For example (this is in Repthink), John Kerry's views on abortion are hypocritical and awful, but even worse is his support for abortion. George Bush's budget busting actions were necessary and the dems would have done it anyway.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Kerry and Abortion
Senator, and presidential candidate, John Kerry announced that he believes that life begins at conception.
see the Washington Post story on this at:
http://is1.websearch.com/websrch.iepan.full/search/inc/results/web/framed.htm?display-url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA27920-2004Jul4%3Flanguage%3Dprinter&qkw=kerry+conception&nextid=di13:1089749489368&frame=http%3A%2F%2Fclickit.go2net.com%2Fsearch%3Fpos%3D11%26ppos%3D10%26plnks%3D10%26uplnks%3D20%26cat%3Dweb%26cid%3D239170%26site%3Dsrch%26area%3Dsrch.noncomm.inktomi%26shape%3Dtextlink%26cp%3Dwebsrch.iepan.full%26cluster-click%3D0%26pd%3D0%26coll%3D0%26query%3Dkerry%2Bconception%26rawto%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA27920-2004Jul4%3Flanguage%3Dprinter
Senator Kerry has a record of support for abortion rights and choice groups. He has made numerous speeches to such groups harshly criticizing people who support restrictions on reproduction rights, harshly criticized restrictions on federal funding of abortions, etc. He hasn't once announced that he believes life begins at conception prior to this year.
I think everyone in the abortion rights movement thinks that Kerry is lying when he says that he believes that life begins at birth. I also think he is lying.
So, this is a case of hypocrisy - saying something one doesn't believe in.
The question becomes what type of hypocrisy is it.
Well, the law on the subject is quite stable. The Supreme Court decision prevents States from infringing on a woman's right to an abortion in the first 6 months of pregnancy and the Partial Birth law (Kerry voted against this; at the time he says he thought it punitive; he now says he would have voted for a softer version of the bill with a clause about woman's health) effectively prevents States from funding abortions in the last 2 months and makes such persons performing such abortions prosecutable.
I think Kerry's hypocrisy on this issue is pretty inconsequential from a legal standpoint. I worry however. Many of the people supporting Kerry on this are doing so because they believe he is lying. What else might he be lying about?
Senator, and presidential candidate, John Kerry announced that he believes that life begins at conception.
see the Washington Post story on this at:
http://is1.websearch.com/websrch.iepan.full/search/inc/results/web/framed.htm?display-url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA27920-2004Jul4%3Flanguage%3Dprinter&qkw=kerry+conception&nextid=di13:1089749489368&frame=http%3A%2F%2Fclickit.go2net.com%2Fsearch%3Fpos%3D11%26ppos%3D10%26plnks%3D10%26uplnks%3D20%26cat%3Dweb%26cid%3D239170%26site%3Dsrch%26area%3Dsrch.noncomm.inktomi%26shape%3Dtextlink%26cp%3Dwebsrch.iepan.full%26cluster-click%3D0%26pd%3D0%26coll%3D0%26query%3Dkerry%2Bconception%26rawto%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA27920-2004Jul4%3Flanguage%3Dprinter
Senator Kerry has a record of support for abortion rights and choice groups. He has made numerous speeches to such groups harshly criticizing people who support restrictions on reproduction rights, harshly criticized restrictions on federal funding of abortions, etc. He hasn't once announced that he believes life begins at conception prior to this year.
I think everyone in the abortion rights movement thinks that Kerry is lying when he says that he believes that life begins at birth. I also think he is lying.
So, this is a case of hypocrisy - saying something one doesn't believe in.
The question becomes what type of hypocrisy is it.
Well, the law on the subject is quite stable. The Supreme Court decision prevents States from infringing on a woman's right to an abortion in the first 6 months of pregnancy and the Partial Birth law (Kerry voted against this; at the time he says he thought it punitive; he now says he would have voted for a softer version of the bill with a clause about woman's health) effectively prevents States from funding abortions in the last 2 months and makes such persons performing such abortions prosecutable.
I think Kerry's hypocrisy on this issue is pretty inconsequential from a legal standpoint. I worry however. Many of the people supporting Kerry on this are doing so because they believe he is lying. What else might he be lying about?
Monday, July 05, 2004
Bad AQ today
Today, I called a friend of ours. We shop for her some since she is in a wheelchair.
She said that she was thinking of going to a store near her today but the air quality was too bad.
She smokes cigarettes.
I almost responded with a sarcastic quip but didn't.
Is this hypocrisy (surely she realizes that the air outside is much better for her than apartment air with cigarette smoke - and btw, the air quality was actually pretty good today)dangerous at all.
No. She probably just wanted to justify to herself a decision. Definitely a type 1.
Today, I called a friend of ours. We shop for her some since she is in a wheelchair.
She said that she was thinking of going to a store near her today but the air quality was too bad.
She smokes cigarettes.
I almost responded with a sarcastic quip but didn't.
Is this hypocrisy (surely she realizes that the air outside is much better for her than apartment air with cigarette smoke - and btw, the air quality was actually pretty good today)dangerous at all.
No. She probably just wanted to justify to herself a decision. Definitely a type 1.
Monday, June 07, 2004
Hypocrisy and Reagan's Death
Among people who didn't like former President Reagan, there were a number of reactions.
Some people simply said what they didn't like about him. The three anti-Reagan writers on Slate did this.
see
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101829/
and
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101835/
This was honest but mean spirited.
Some people who didn't like him had a kind word followed by some colder thoughts. Former President Carter had comments like this. This also came out sounding mean spirited.
However, Senator John Kerry (a google and nexus search of Kerry's comments about Reagan reveals that Kerry disliked Reagan and Reagan's policies) had a fairly long and warm thought about Reagan. This was probably hypocritical but comes out sounding nice and statesmanlike.
Kerry's announcement is at: http://is1.websearch.com/websrch.iepan.full/search/inc/results/web/framed.htm?display-url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Farticles%2F2004%2F06%2F05%2Fkerry_calls_reagans_optimism_an_example&qkw=kerry%2bon%2breagan&nextid=ms15:1086658482562&frame=http%3A%2F%2Fclickit.go2net.com%2Fsearch%3Fpos%3D3%26ppos%3D0%26plnks%3D0%26uplnks%3D20%26cat%3Dweb%26cid%3D239170%26site%3Dsrch%26area%3Dsrch.noncomm.inktomi%26shape%3Dtextlink%26cp%3Dwebsrch.iepan.full%26cluster-click%3D0%26pd%3D0%26coll%3D0%26query%3Dkerry%2Bon%2Breagan%26rawto%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Farticles%2F2004%2F06%2F05%2Fkerry_calls_reagans_optimism_an_example
A victory for hypocrisy - at least type 1.
Among people who didn't like former President Reagan, there were a number of reactions.
Some people simply said what they didn't like about him. The three anti-Reagan writers on Slate did this.
see
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101829/
and
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101835/
This was honest but mean spirited.
Some people who didn't like him had a kind word followed by some colder thoughts. Former President Carter had comments like this. This also came out sounding mean spirited.
However, Senator John Kerry (a google and nexus search of Kerry's comments about Reagan reveals that Kerry disliked Reagan and Reagan's policies) had a fairly long and warm thought about Reagan. This was probably hypocritical but comes out sounding nice and statesmanlike.
Kerry's announcement is at: http://is1.websearch.com/websrch.iepan.full/search/inc/results/web/framed.htm?display-url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Farticles%2F2004%2F06%2F05%2Fkerry_calls_reagans_optimism_an_example&qkw=kerry%2bon%2breagan&nextid=ms15:1086658482562&frame=http%3A%2F%2Fclickit.go2net.com%2Fsearch%3Fpos%3D3%26ppos%3D0%26plnks%3D0%26uplnks%3D20%26cat%3Dweb%26cid%3D239170%26site%3Dsrch%26area%3Dsrch.noncomm.inktomi%26shape%3Dtextlink%26cp%3Dwebsrch.iepan.full%26cluster-click%3D0%26pd%3D0%26coll%3D0%26query%3Dkerry%2Bon%2Breagan%26rawto%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Farticles%2F2004%2F06%2F05%2Fkerry_calls_reagans_optimism_an_example
A victory for hypocrisy - at least type 1.
Friday, June 04, 2004
Lack of Hypocrisy Accusations
The campaign so far is notible for the lack of hypocrisy accusations. The Bush people are focusing their anti Kerry mantra as 'he flip-flops', which is probably a good idea for them because 'flip flops' are a type of beach wear and can be help up at Kerry events.
The Kerry people have no single focus of their anti-Bush chants but, to my knowledge, they haven't yet accused him of hypocrisy.
The campaign so far is notible for the lack of hypocrisy accusations. The Bush people are focusing their anti Kerry mantra as 'he flip-flops', which is probably a good idea for them because 'flip flops' are a type of beach wear and can be help up at Kerry events.
The Kerry people have no single focus of their anti-Bush chants but, to my knowledge, they haven't yet accused him of hypocrisy.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)