Senator Arlan Specter formerly R-PA, now D-PA


Here is what Arlan Specter said back on March 18 (per the Philadephia newspaper)

"To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket," Specter said in a statement released by his campaign manager.

Here is what Arlan Specter said on April 28 (per the NY Times),

“I’m not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate, not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,”

he also said this,

“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans"

Here is a case where the first statement evidently had a parenthesis that no one knew about. When he said, "... I am running in 2010 as a Republican..." he evidently meant to add "assuming I win the Republican primary which I'm sure I will win". As it turned out, in the 4 weeks between the two statements it became evident to Senator Spector that he would not win the primary (in fact as of the time he made the April 28 statement he was behind by 10 points among self described moderate Republicans in PA. The declaration about political philosophy. I'll give him a break on the hypocrisy charge. I'll also say that based on my discussions with the Pennsylvania DOT, he is, to be kind, a difficult person to deal with. If I was just using the political philosophy statement, it would be so stupid as to be laughable since the Republican philosophy hasn't changed in the month between the statements and no body even alleges this.

Philadelphia Inquirer article
NYTimes article (also the image is from the NYTimes)

Miss California and the Gay Marriage issue

That's Miss California on the left. Her name is Carrie Prejean.

She was asked by the gossip columnist Perez Hilton (who I think is gay) what she thought of gay marriage. Here is what she said,

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

and here is what Perez then said, "The way Miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt! Never before that I'm aware of has a contestant been booed at Miss USA." Later he made a video blog calling her a "..dumb bitch.." and subsequently he removed the video and sort-or-apologized.

Many others in the Gay Community reacted even more strongly.

"It's ugly," said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."

Interestly, here is what then candidate (now President) Obama said on gay marriage,

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

So the question is, given that Miss California and Obama have approximately the same position on gay marriage (Miss California seems to actually be more 'pro' gay marriage and more nuanced than Obama), why isn't the gay community criticizing Obama.

I think the answer is that they assume Obama was disingenuous when he gave his position. They assume he actually wants to legalize gay marriage and will do what he can to get that done but that he has to oppose gay marriage to be elected. More simply put, they assume he is a hypocrite (I do not know whether they are correct on this and don't have a good guess).


Sources:
here
here
here
here
here

Armenian Genocide:
Obama Finds A Loophole

The image is from a collection of photos taken in the early part of the 1900s in Turkey/Armenia in a collection. The caption on this reads, "Turkish hangmen and their victims in Aleppo, 1915". Many of the other images at this site are far, far more gruesome.

The Washington Post today reported on President Obama's remarks while visiting Turkey. While a Senator, Obama signed a letter (as did then Senator Biden and then Senator Clinton) calling on then President Bush to recognize the Armenian massacres of the early 19th century as a genocide. He had on several occasions made the recognition of this genocide part of his presidential campaign. On this trip to Turkey, he did not mention the word "genocide" and was had among other things to say this,

"...'while there's been a good deal of commentary about my views, it's really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past."

Unfortunately that phrasing makes the victims and the victimizers equal.

Notwithstanding this all, the interesting thing from a technical study of "hypocrisy" is that, based on my definition, Obama can only be charged with hypocrisy for what he says or does, not for what he doesn't say or doesn't do. In effect, he found a loophole in my definition. Thus he would be innocent of the charge of hypocrisy on this issue (although perhaps guilty of 'hedging' or being 'dodgy' or being 'morally corrupt' or something along this line).

By the way, the Obama-Biden campaign post on this issue, has the following< " As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago [in 2006], I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."


April 24 is Armenian Remembrance Day in the US. Perhaps I will post script something then if I can decide if there is a general response to this 'dodginess' by the Armenian-American community.

Postscript April 24: The Armenian Weekly had an article quoting the President of the Armenian National Committee of America. He said,

“I join with all Armenian Americans in voicing our sharp disappointment with President Obama’s failure to honor his solemn pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

In falling short of his repeated and crystal clear promises, which reflected a thorough knowledge of the facts, the practical implications, and the profound moral dimension of Armenian Genocide recognition, the President chose, as a matter of policy, to allow our nation’s stand against genocide to remain a hostage to Turkey’s threats.

The President’s statement today represents a retreat from his pledge and a setback to the vital change he promised to bring about in how America confronts the crime of genocide.

Genocide must be confronted unconditionally at the level of American values and our common humanity. As Americans, we should never allow the prevention or recognition of this crime to be reduced to a political issue that can be traded away, retreated from under pressure, or used to advance a political agenda, of any kind."

Republicans and Filibustering Hypocrisy

Dahlia Lithwick, a liberal columnists at Slate has a longish article there entitled, "How many ways can Senate Republicans Show Breathless Hypocrisy".

Part of the article is on the issue of filibustering in the Senate. Part of the article is on the issue of claiming that the nominee hasn't been forthcoming on answers.

The second issue is impossible to address because I would need to do a legitimate statistical analysis of questions before nominees by party by type of nominee, etc.

The first issue is, at least at first take, easier to understand. The Lithwick hypothesis is that some Republicans accused Democrats of unethically (or unconstitutionally) filibustering judicial nominees and now Republicans threaten to filibuster judicial nominees.

This would be a reasonable hypothesis but for the fact that: Lithwick does not identify a single Republican who made that claim (she cites a newspaper article in the LATimes which says that both sides are changing their filibustering tactics). Similarly, she doesn't say the Republicans have filibustered anyone (they haven't) and she doesn't identify a single Senator who says he (or she) will filibuster.

I'm presuming that Lithwick is not so lazy or stupid as to be incapable of these citations. Thus I'm going to conclude she just likes the word 'hypocrisy' and the phrase 'breathless hypocrisy" (and they she herself is blinded by ideology).

The Imus Apology; The Obama Apology

Then Senator Obama wanted Don Imus (radio and TV commentator) fired for a comment that members of a women's basket team were "nappy headed hos". This was several days after Imus had apologized. Imus was eventually fired and after about a year he was rehired (Imus and Obama on the left).

A few days ago on the Jay Leno show, President Obama compared his own bowling ability to a "special olympics" level. Obama apologized. Nobody that I can find is calling for Obama's resignation or any punishment at all. The special olympics committee seems to have accepted Obama's apology.

Is Obama a hypocrite for not resigning when he called for Imus's firing over a similar insulting comment.

Well, one defense that Obama could make was that in his comment, Obma was making fun of Obama. Imus was making fun of other people. Its not a strong defense but probably is enough to avoid the hypocrite label.

Still there is a double standard here and what's more interesting is that none of the big media people pointed out Obama call for firing Imus during the 'special olympics' apology. In addition, given the way Obama is briefed and the way he prepares for interviews, there is a strong chance the 'special olympics' comment was pre-scripted.


A Politico report on Obama's special olympic comment is here.

An ABC report (from 2007) on the Obama call for firing Imus is here.

Below is the timeline for the 2007 events courtesy of blackjusticeblog:

4/4/07 Imus says "nappy headed hos."
4/6/07 Imus apologizes.
4/7/07 Sharpton calls for Imus to be fired.
4/11/07 The Boston Globe writes a piece about Obama's silence on the issue thus far. Sharpton, who has not endorsed any Presidential candidate, is interviewed.
4/11/07 Obama is interviewed by ABC and is the first presidential candidate to demand Imus' firing.
4/11/07 Obama appears on Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room. He condemns Imus without mentioning rap (subsequently he condemned both Imus and rap music).
4/11/07 Imus is fired from MSNBC.
4/12/07 Imus is fired from CBS.

Service Employees International Union is anti Union

As reported in an article in today's Washington Post, the SEIU (their logo is in the image) is engaged in a labor dispute with the Union representing its own workers. This Union hasfiled charges with the National Labor Relations Board.

As explained in the article,

"...The Service Employees International Union... has notified the union that represents about 220 of its national field staff and organizers that 75 of them are being laid off. In return, the workers' union, which goes by the somewhat postmodern name of the Union of Union Representatives, has filed unfair labor practices charges against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board. The staff union's leaders say that SEIU is engaging in the same kind of practices that some businesses use -- laying off workers without proper notice, contracting out work to temp firms, banning union activities and reclassifying workers to reduce union numbers.

"It's completely hypocritical," said staff union President Malcolm Harris...

SEIU officials say the layoffs are part of a long-running plan to reallocate resources...."

I'm not familiar enough with the actual policy of the SEIU and the actual facts of the layoffs, contracting out, etc. to say whether this is a case of hypocrisy. But it is amusing.

Hypocrisy Contest

Over at Deceiver Madness they have a tournament, modeled on the NCAA Division I Basketball tournament.

People can go to the site and vote for winners of Hypocrisy runoffs.

The image to the left was done after the first round of winners.

I'm not going to comment on their definition of hypocrisy because they don't define it. They simply state that there is hypocrisy. Personally, I don't think the fact bear them out.

However, I like the idea of a contest done in this playoff format.

Big Nate:
Cartoon Hypocrite

The artist didn't use the word "hypocrite" here but its clear that he is making fun of Nate (dark spike hair guy) for criticizing people for doing what he himself is doing. This theme has been running for a couple of days now.

Dilbert on Hypocrisy

This is the first time I can remember that hypocrisy was mentioned in one of the comic strips I follow regularly. Below is the Dilbert published in the newspaper and on, Feb 25, 2009 on the Dilbert website.

The claim that corporate and Congressional executives flew together to a Congressional hearing isn't credible nor do I know of any case where the same plane was used for Congressional travel (Congressional delegations usually use either 1st class commercial or military aircraft) and Corporate travel (G pointed out that the expression 'same jet' is ambiguous). So, the 'same jet' may simply mean "a Gulfstream 3" or even "a Gulfstream".

The general claim that Congressional people are pompous is credible. Also if the general charge were that Congressional people says "don't use expensive perks" that would be hypocrisy because Congressional people do use expensive perks.

Let's Look at Some Ethics Promises of Obama/Biden

There was, as of today, a website used by the Obama/Biden campaign which made a number of commitments on ethics.

Here were some of the commitments (from at website):

• Close the revolving door on former and future employers:

  No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.

• Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
• Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Regarding the first bullet, there are, as of today, about two dozen known former lobbyists (depending on the definition) who have been appointed. The Obama/Biden Administration has said that these are exceptions. There are also an unknown number (at least a dozen have been specifically announced) of people who went from the Obama/Biden campaign directly to lobbying companies. This, of course, is not covered by the ethics promise.

Regarding the second bullet, President Obama signed two bills, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the State Children Health Insurance Program within two days (the second within hours) after it passed Congress. The Obama/Biden Administration has not said whether these were exceptions (hard to believe they could be called 'emergencies').

Regarding the third bullet, there were many egregious clauses in the Simulus Bill (one for an $8 billion maglev program, another $30M for habitat protection for a mouse that lives in the SF Bay area). Obama signed it 4 days after the Congress passed it (The President did say was an emergency - unlike the Ledbetter or S-Chips legislation which took less time to sign).

Here is a problem. I faced it when I was in government. The problem is "what is an earmark?". It may be that the common sense definition of 'earmark' is not used by President Obama. Here is one definition by the OMB (which is part of the executive branch),

"... funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process."

Here is the Congressional Research Service definition,

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)"

We don't know what Obama's definition is.

In this case, it seems to me that the Obama campaign promise itself was clearly an example of an overpromise because bringing the sunlight to earmarks is a congressional responsibility which is difficult for the executive to fill unless they have spies among the staffers in the drafting and conference committees.

Let's see if the President has anything to say about any of these issues in the coming weeks before completing the analysis.

Postscript: It is now (Writing on March 15) several weeks later. Obama seems to have the position, "well I said I would curtail earmarks, I didn't say when". Yuck.

Also, here is an interesting except from Obama's second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope"

"..."Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith....

If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'...

"For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'

More Hypocrisy From Celebrity Greens

- or is it

The London (England) Times has obtained (it didn't say how) an infrared image of several neighborhoods in London with homes owned by celebrity 'anti-Global Warming' advocates (the image is from the article and the bright red - very 'leaky' home is owned by singer Chris Martin and actress Gwyneth Paltrow- both anti GW advocates). The Times says it provided the images to a company that analyzes the images for wasted heat. It found that a number of celebrities have homes that are leaking heat, presumably because of poor insulation, over design with windows, etc. It also had estimates for lost energy for other homes:

Lost energy

Sir David Attenborough, broadcaster: 288kg

Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the Environment Agency: 186kg

John Sauven, director of Greenpeace: 158kg

Richard Chartres, Bishop of London: 135kg

Hilary Benn, environment secretary: 126kg

Ed Miliband, energy and climate change secretary: 121kg

David Cameron, Tory leader: 21kg

There are several issues here. First, is the data accurate? Second, is the data analysis accurate? Third is the interpretation of the analysis appropriate (for example, if some of these homes are used for multiperson offices, the 'excess heat/person' may be much less).

Above all is the issue of knowledge. Does, for example, Lord Smith realize his home is poorly insulated and has leaky windows? If he does know and does nothing about it and advocates other people should insulate and fix leaky windows, that does make him a hypocrite. But really, what if he doesn't realize his house is an energy waster? That would just make him a fool (or an ignoramus or even a pompous ignoramus) which seems actually worse that being a hypocrite.

Did Obama Break A Campaign Promise and then "Disappear" the Promise

The fellow in the image is Lloyd Chapman. He blogs for the American Small Business League. He maintains that Senator Obama promised during his campaign,

"....Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy and we must protect this great resource. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants."

He then states that President Obama has not done anything yet to implement this and has, in fact, made the situation worse. He also notes that some websites which featured Senator Obama's promise to small business have disappeared (but he had screen saves of them I gather).

As to hypocrisy, it is far too early to tell. Three weeks into an administration isn't time to implement pro small business practices (full disclosure: I think, based on my experience as a federal govt employee, a lot of the federal govt.'s small business practices are wasteful; I think it is almost indisputable that the regulation in this area drives up the cost of certain highway items, e.g., guardrail, line painting, etc.). Let's see what this fellow says this time next year.


The Wikipedia site on Mr. Chapman is here. He apparently sued the Bush administration a number of times so it doesn't seem he is a partisan Republican.

Mr. Chapman's blog was put out as a PR piece by the American Small Business League.

The Obama campaign website had a promise on the small business issue.

Prince Charles on an Ecotour

Prince Charles, his wife and 16 friends will be going on a 10 day ecotour to promote awareness of global warming.

They will use the A-319 jet pictured on the left (which could transport about 130 people if used commercially). Per various calculations, the carbon footprint will exceed 200 tons. Charles says this will be offset with carbon credits.

Once again, this is a test of belief. If Charles really, truly beliefs in carbon credits, then no hypocrisy.

The info for the article comes from a British newspaper.

I don't know how much per ton Charles paid. From this wikipedia article it seems it would be on the order of $20 to $50 per ton.

State University of Illinois and Their Plagiarism Policy

My brother Irwin alerted me to this interesting tidbit.

An State Illinois University (SIU) committee had recently completed an 18 months long inquiry into plagiarism at the SIU. A 17 page report was published (about 1 page for every month the committee deliberated). The report contained a definition of plagiarism that seems to have been copied, almost word for word from a definition published by Indiana University in 2005. This is per a report by a blogger who is taking an account from another source (with proper attribution).

On a fun note, various people on the SIU team that developed the policy were interviewed and no one was willing and able to say who did the plagiarism definition. One person on the team said it must just be coincidence but as the two definitions were read to her indicated that maybe it wasn't coincidence.

Assuming the body of the report says that plagiarizing is bad and not to be tolerated, this example of plagiarizing by the SIU committee (or the principle author of the study or the very shy author of the definition of plagiarizing), is a fairly obvious case of hypocrisy.

Is it serious?

I don't think so. First of all, very few people really care whether an SIU committee is committing hypocrisy (personally I presume people assume there is a certain amount of sleasiness in SIU). Second, whether SIU investigates and prevents further plagiarism is pretty much dependent on enforcement, not policy since everyone acknowledges that Universities shouldn't engage in plagiarism nor allow professors or students to do so.

However, the article is very good for chuckles. The image is a structure on the Carbondale, IL. campus called the "Paul and Virginia Fountain". Apparently the sculptor of this is unknown (like the author of the plagiarized definition).

UPDATE: At this same university, the Director of Career Services retired recently when it was revealed that his actual military service records did not match the awards and medals he had claimed the past 20 years.

Did Hypocrisy Sink the Nomination of Tom Daschle

There is a long post on Townhall by the son of Linda Chavez. Ms. Chavez was nominated by George W. Bush to be Labor Secretary in 2001. She had to withdraw her nomination because of criticism based on a tax issue.

The writer says that Daschle's vigorous opposition. Here is the writer's version:

"...Shortly after my mother Linda Chavez was nominated by President Bush to be Secretary of Labor in January of 2001, ABC News reported that she had given room and board to an undocumented woman from Guatemala. As Chavez stated at the time, she had provided the battered woman with emergency assistance due to the domestic abuse she was facing at the time, got her enrolled in English classes, and helped her find work with a neighbor. In her own defense, Chavez pointed to her long history of taking in those in need, and a long history of paying taxes on household help from legal citizens, as tax records confirmed.

But Chavez’s honest explanation was completely disregarded by Daschle. Less than a week after Bush announced the nomination, the then-Minority Leader declared he had “serious problems” with the illegal alien revelations and threatened to filibuster her nomination, a move that would have been the first in our nation’s history against a cabinet nominee...."

There are some problems that the writer glosses over. The undocumented woman did a lot of chores for the Chavez household while living there. These chores went beyond those of a 'guest'. So, there was some legitimate question of whether the woman was an 'employee'. Not withstanding the fact that the woman, herself, said that she did these chores by her own initiative and is a friend of the Chavez household.

Anyway, let's assume this is hypocrisy. The fact is that I don't think the 'hypocrisy' issue affected the Daschle nomination or the fact that he withdrew his nomination today. The issue was, I think, 1. 'you are supposed to pay taxes and the bigger a celebrity you are, the cleaner you should be'; and 2. Obama promised that he would bring people in who were not part of the system of lobbyists (Daschle was a consultant to lobbyists, not technically a lobbyist but it is a technical difference that doesn't ring very cleanly). In a sense, then, it was Obama's promises on ethics (a possible hypocrisy that I might get to analyze at some point) that sunk Daschle and not Daschle's hypocrisy (they are both in the image on the top).

Thermostat Hypocrisy
h/t Instapundit (who used this phrase in a post)

To the left is an image of a White House meeting that took place Jan 27 or 28. The President and two others have removed their suit jacket.

As reported by the NY Times (who is also responsible for the image),
"... President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat."

An Obama advisor said, " “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

Let's ignore the fact that Obama hasn't lived in Hawaii for many years (although he has vacationed there).

Here is an Obama statement from the campaign,

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

Here is an Obama statement about the weather and D.C. area school closings (Jan 28 2009),

""My children's school was canceled today," Obama said, speaking to reporters before a meeting with business leaders. "Because of what? Some ice? . . . We're going to have to apply some flinty Chicago toughness (this contradicts the "Hawaii" defense by the way) to this town."

He clearly is doing that (raising the thermostat to 'orchid temperature' in the winter) which he says we "can't" (actually he should have said, "shouldn't" in that quote).

Hypocrisy but not very serious.

Boston Herald Says Barney Frank is a Hypocrite

Well the opinion piece by staff of the Boston Herald is short enough to quote in its entirety,

"Barney Frank’s hypocrisy

By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Saturday, January 24, 2009 -

Ah, the dirty little secret is out. That $700 billion TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bill was in part simply a variation on congressional pork - except this time the recipients were banks with friends in high places.

One of those powerful friends was Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. And one of the recipients of a $12 million infusion of federal cash was the troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston - a bank that had already been accused of “unsafe and unsound banking practices.” Its CEO, Kevin Cohee had also been criticized by regulators for “excessive” pay that included a Porsche.

Frank admits he included language in the TARP legislation specifically designed to bail out OneUnited. He also acknowledges contacting officials at the Treasury Department about the bank’s bailout application.

“I believe it would have been a very big mistake to put the only black bank (in Massachusetts) out of business,” Frank said. Besides, he insists, “It was a case of the federal government causing the problem.”

Causing the bad loans OneUnited made? Or would that go back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Frank so staunchly defended earlier on?

Frank has never failed to amaze us with his ability to defend the indefensible and to staunchly uphold the double standard. It’s his special talent."

---------------

It may be that the staff of the Boston Herald knows a lot of what Barney Frank (that's him in the image) has said in the past but I certainly don't. I don't think most of the readers of the paper do either. In any case I haven't a clue as to what Barney Frank said that makes his actions in greasing the skids to get a home town bank bailed out classified as hypocrisy. Personally, I think the staff should have entitled their piece, "Barney Frank's Buddies Get $". If those buddies were big time contributors to the Barney Frank campaign fund also, that would be interesting from a legal standpoint. However, as to hypocrisy--- I can't see it.

Comment: Is CIA Director Nominee a Hypocrite?

Thus reads the title of a posting at a site called "Intelligence News."

This has to do with the practice of rendition, in which the US essentially kidnaps someone and delivers him to some other country for interrogation.

There is no doubt that this practice existed during the Clinton Administration and that Leon Panetta (image on the left, the nominee for CIA Director) knew about it. There is also no doubt that, in the months following the 9-11 atrocity, the US did more of it than it had under the Clinton Administration.

The posting actually acknowledges the fact that Panetta might have changed his mind about the legality or morality of the practice or might have an idea that under some sets of circumstances, the practice of rendition is OK and under other circumstances it is not OK. In the middle of this analysis the post says the following,

"...Leo Panetta’s purported role in the practice of extraordinary rendition during Bill Clinton’s Presidency does not automatically render hypocritical his stated condemnation of torture."

I certainly agree with this. Its far too complicated to make a definitive statement about hypocrisy.

Accusing Itself of Hypothetical Hypocrisy

Reporting on a tax problem of the nominee for US Secretary of the Treasury, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said,


"... Obama's staff told senators about the tax problems [failure to pay taxes on a reimbursement for taxes that he hadn't paid] on Dec. 5. We should have been clued in, say, Dec. 6. It should not come up hours before a Senate confirmation hearing -- not when it's clear that transparency is supposed to be the standard for this new administration. We can only imagine what we would have said had Geithner been a Bush appointee..."

This says to me that the newspaper admits (or possibly brags) that it would criticize a Republican (or Bush Administration) action far more harshly than it would the same action by a Democrat (or future Obama Administration).

Of course, this is a hypothetical case since no one nominated by Bush committed a tax violation similar to the one committed.

"You Know" vs. "Uh"

Caroline Kennedy is seeking to be appointed to the Senate in NY (to replace Sen. Clinton when Clinton takes office as Sec of State). Caroline apparently says, "you know" a lot.

According to the Telegraph,

"Caroline Kennedy's campaign to claim Hillary Clinton's Senate seat has taken another downturn after an interview in which she said "you know" 142 times..."

The interesting thing here is that President elect Obama uses the expression 'uh' a lot. The Telegraph has never made fun of him for this.

I'm not sure what is going on here. Maybe to the British mind (or ear), "You know" sounds worse that "Uh". If so, its not hypocrisy; otherwise, it sure seems to be.

On the Letterman program in March 2008, they made fun of the Obama "Uh"s. However, no one ever said it was disqualifying.