Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (511541)	9/9/2009 3:54:19 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578439

What year is supposed to be on the cover of his book which isn't shown on the covers available on the net..... You posted links to 2 years, 2000 and 01. Only 2000 had HAL listed.....50 shares. Very Christian World Net Daily says he owned thousands of shares of stocks....no evidence shown though.... What was wrong with owning HAL in 1999? Had they been exposed at that time? Here's another review you should review... "Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer Left Unsaid A review by Ben Adler Liberals are really just as hypocritical as conservatives. That, in a nutshell, is the message Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, delivers to his presumably conservative readers in Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. Schweizer opens the book by acknowledging how many socially conservative leaders have been exposed for failing to practice what they (literally, in some cases) preach. But, he counters, "do-as-I-say liberals [also] don't trust their ideas enough to apply them at home." Schweizer focuses on eleven "liberal leaders and spokesmen who are generally esteemed by their constituents and have an influence on the broader culture." The list contains the predictable conservative bugaboos like the Clintons and Ted Kennedy, but also some figures who don't really meet his definition, either because they're controversial among liberals (Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, and George Soros) or inconsequential (Barbara Streisand). It's a surprise he leaves out Jane Fonda. Less surprising is that Do as I Say includes a number of distortions. Schweizer goes after Ted Kennedy for a tax-shelter scheme concocted by Kennedy's father in 1947, and asserts that Kennedy tries to "avoid" taxes by buying state bonds. What's his point? Liberals who support taxation shouldn't buy state bonds? And nothing is too petty for Schweizer. Harping on Moore, Schweizer attacks him for outsourcing jobs to Canada. Says Schweizer: "For his film Canadian Bacon, he filmed scenes that allegedly took place in the United States in Ontario." But Schweizer's assumption that Moore shot the movie in Canada for cheaper labor is somewhat undercut by the fact the movie is titled Canadian Bacon, not say, Rumble in the Bronx. Perhaps most misleading is Schweizer's claim that Al Franken is a hypocrite because he opposes abstinence-only education programs despite "sen[ding] at least one of his children to a private New York school that boasts an 'abstinence plus' sex ed curriculum." As Franken pointed out to TNR, abstinence plus is completely different from abstinence only, because the former teaches safer sex options which the latter excludes. Some of Schweizer's examples aren't really hypocrisy even when taken at face value. Why does Michael Moore's supposedly lavish lifestyle make his advocacy on behalf of the poor hypocritical? Coupled with his financial success, Moore's willingness to support politicians who would give some of his wealth to those less fortunate may seem contradictory, but it actually demonstrates his principles -- i.e., a commitment to reducing inequality -- rather than undermines them. More disappointing than any of those quibbles is that Do as I Say ducks the most interesting question it raises. Namely, when does personal hypocrisy matter in the political arena? Surely it can matter. Rush Limbaugh's calls to throw drug addicts in prison are less convincing when he himself abuses prescription painkillers and then wriggles his way out of a jail term. But the reason they're less convincing isn't just because Limbaugh is preaching one thing and then doing another. It's because conservatives like Limbaugh believe that personal morality matters when it comes to public life: The politician who has an affair should be deemed less trustworthy in the eyes of his constituents than the politician who is faithful. So once you discover that Limbaugh behaves "immorally" in private, you either have to question his trustworthiness as a public figure (as he would advise were the sinner someone else), or you have to question his belief that personal morality matters when judging a public figure. But, within reason, liberals don't believe there's much of a correlation between a person's private lack of virtue and his or her public behavior. (Liberals usually draw the line at victimless crimes.) On the level of principle, liberals have no problem with a strong advocate of public education sending her own children to private school (though, practically speaking, it might make the advocate less effective were it to become public knowledge). In order to make a hypocrisy charge stick against liberals, you'd have to find someone promising one thing then doing another in a way that affects a significant number of people -- e.g., an anti-war candidate who funds a secret war in some far-off country. That's why liberals tend to focus more on George W. Bush's broken promise to be a uniter, or to be fiscally responsible than, say, his years as a problem drinker. It's only when Schweizer unearths this latter kind of failing that he's on solid ground. Several of his strongest passages involve Moore, who, for example, attacks Halliburton's war-profiteering but nonetheless enables it by allowing his charitable foundation to own significant amounts of Halliburton stock. Still, for the most part, Do as I Say is more concerned with scoring cheap political points by wounding the character of prominent liberals than with exposing any deeper moral rot on the left. Then again, for Schweizer and his ilk, those two things are usually one and the same.