Hypocrisy?

[punky]

Is it just me, or is this apalling hypocrisy?

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...314615&start=1

Kinda like when certain anti-gun celebs insist on armed body guards... And people wonder why I call the ACLU a joke of an organisation.

[Stuart C]

I am no real fan of Moore, but

From the second article Punky linked to:


A man who claims to be Michael Moore's bodyguard has been arrested for carrying an unlicensed handgun at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport.

Police say the 'Fahrenheit 9/11' film-maker was not with bodyguard Patrick Burk, 34, at the time of his arrest on Wednesday.

So, he claims to be Moore's bodyguard. Doesn't mean he is.

[Paul]

Yet another organisation arguing for the sake of arguing. They see bag searches as an "erosion of privacy" yet they carry out bag searches on anyone entering their building. Nice to see that they stand by their own moral arguments

[Stuart C]

Actually. further to my previous post, I do agree that the NYCLU are being hypocritical in insisting on bag searches in their own building while objecting to them for everyone else.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

So, he claims to be Moore's bodyguard. Doesn't mean he is.

I don't want this to turn into a Moore argument, but it came to mind when I started this thread. He was Moore's bodyguard. The gun charge has nothing to do with it, its that Michael Moore seems to think he is worthy of using gun's to protect himself, yet mere mortals like myself aren't allowed to. Its not guns or Moore I am talking about here, its hypocrisy of the ACLU.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by punky

I don't want this to turn into a Moore argument, but it came to mind when I started this thread. He was Moore's bodyguard. The gun charge has nothing to do with it, its that Michael Moore seems to think he is worthy of using gun's to protect himself, yet mere mortals like myself aren't allowed to. Its not guns or Moore I am talking about here, its hypocrisy of the ACLU.

I can fully appreciate what you are saying here Punky, but it is not out of the realms of possibility that Moore may be attracting the very thing he is trying to repel. In that as an outspoken critic of US gun laws he may increase his chances of someone taking a pop. Hence the protection?

As for NYCLU it does appear hypocritical but the article does say that they share the building with other organisations so they may not have total authority over this decision. That or they're just hypocrites .

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

As for NYCLU it does appear hypocritical but the article does say that they share the building with other organisations so they may not have total authority over this decision. That or they're just hypocrites .

Probably the latter.......

Difficult to judge on that report (for the point SlackDad makes - if they're tenants, it may not be their decision; and a private building and a public network are different entities). But NYCLU has altered its position on subway searches: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...-top-headlines

[Paul]

Sorry but anyone that protests against an action whilst carrying out the very same action is nothing but a hipocritical fool who is opening themselves up to ridicule. You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you are openly using a procedure that you are trying to get stopped.
If bag searches are necessary in that building then obviously they are needed elsewhere just as much, if not more.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Paul

Sorry but anyone that protests against an action whilst carrying out the very same action is nothing but a hipocritical fool who is opening themselves up to ridicule. You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you are openly using a procedure that you are trying to get stopped.
If bag searches are necessary in that building then obviously they are needed elsewhere just as much, if not more.

Well said matey. I wish I could rep you.

Another example of hypocrisy: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=41469

There are two other reasons why I despise the ACLU, but I can't find supporting articles for them: One is from where some Christians went to the ACLU after their Christmas display in front of their house was banned on religious grounds (as opposed to light pollution or problems with planning permission), and the ACLU refused to take their case on (see link above). Second, the US government has recently approved compulsary purchase orders, something I am not fond of at all... The ACLU rejected a victim's application for support as they were not an ethnic minority. Because white people don't have rights worth protecting, do they?

[Paul]

Looks like a prime example of a group focusing on helping minorities while turning their backs on others that need their support. Instead of helping all people who are being treated unfairly because of their race/ religion/ sex/ financial status etc they are fighting what in reality is solely a political point scoring battle.
In my view that makes them just as bad as the people that they are supposedly fighting against.

[BBKing]

Firstly, punky doesn't point out the inherent bias in the original source (lexisnexis is a news archiving system, but the article is from the New York Sun) - a newspaper partly owned by Hollinger (fomer board member Richard Perle, who's a neocon and formerly run by the dreadful Canadian crook Conrad 'Lord' Black, given a peerage by Blair in about 2001. Take a line through Robert Maxwell and you'll have an inkling of his business practices. Very right-wing and supportive of Bush, of course, which naturally calls into question the motives behind an obvious hatchet job on an organisation which, let's face it, has a few problems with the way Bush runs the USA. It's not hard to see why a bit of deflection might come in useful just as things are getting a bit sticky in the White House. To give you a clue as to how obviously biased the article is, the original quote is:

Originally Posted by NYCLU

While fully supporting reasonable and effective security measures he NYCLU contends that this program marks a dramatic and unjustified erosion of the privacy rights of the American public. The NYCLU charges the search procedures violate the Fourth Amendment rights of those subject to it.

The NYS chops it down to the misleading

Originally Posted by NYS

unjustifiable erosion of the privacy rights of the American public.

, neatly avoiding mentioning the NYCLU's support for *effective* measures and their contention that it's a Constitutional question, since presumably even neocons still have some slight regard for that document.

Right, hypocrisy eh? What a dreadful crime. Let's stop attacking Bush and co. for claiming to be fighting for freedom and liberty while repeatedly lying, suppressing dissent, raping the planet, poisoning the population, murdering thousands of Iraqi civilians, destroying the morale of the US military, spending billions of dollars they haven't got, jeopardising the world economy and exporting torture and arbitary detention because an organisation punky doesn't like (why? because it's got the word 'liberties' in the name?) doesn't always practice quite what it preaches? Sense of proportion entirely absent here, methinks. If it's hypocrisy you want, look to the man at the top. Hypocrisy is worse the more power you have, like anything else. Civil liberties are important partly because they seek to put limits on the power of the executive over the individual, which is a *good* thing (as usual, draw up a list of countries where these limits have been absent, and ask yourself if you'd like to live there - then ask yourself why you should support people who seek to denigrate and smear them in our societies).

Anyway, surely private organisations and individuals should be allowed *more* power than the state (isn't that the neo-libertarian consensus, in fact?). So what's the problem? So the 'hypocrisy' isn't really all it seems. I didn't feel particularly infringed when the BBC goons searched my bag at TV Centre just after the Jill Dando murder. I would if it had been a bunch of burly coppers in the street outside my house.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by punky

Is it just me, or is this apalling hypocrisy?

It's just you.

There is a big difference between randomly stopping and searching people on the subway and taking reasonable security precautions.

Also please note where it says: "Yet take a walk into the NYCLU's Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you'll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

So it's not as if it's *JUST* the NYCLU who are insisting on this.

And, yes, it's "kind of like when"...

certain anti-gun celebs insist on armed body guards...

1) Note he *claims* to be Michael Moore's bodyguard

2) Buck works for private security company Gavin De Becker & Associates.

3) A spokesman refused to comment on whether he has been protecting Moore.

4) The security firm's boss Michael LaFever says, "Patrick Burk is licensed to carry a firearm in several states" and was actually *handing over* the firearm at the time!

5) You have absolutely no proof that Michael Moore "insisted" on him being armed.

It suggests that you're just taking the opportunity to have a pop at organisations you don't like without bothering to think about the facts.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

Another example of hypocrisy: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=41469

There are two other reasons why I despise the ACLU, but I can't find supporting articles for them: One is from where some Christians went to the ACLU after their Christmas display in front of their house was banned on religious grounds (as opposed to light pollution or problems with planning permission), and the ACLU refused to take their case on (see link above).

Punky, did you actually *READ* the article you've just linked to???

I can see nothing in that where it says the ACLU "refused to take their case on" in fact what it *actually* says is that "The Constitution allows a Rhode Island city to have private religious holiday displays on its front lawn, a federal judge ruled yesterday in a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union."

This is *NOTHING* like what you have claimed!

Given this, I can't accept the credibility of your second assertion, which is not even backed up by a cite (even one that contradicts your opinion!)

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Firstly, punky doesn't point out the inherent bias in the original source

I wasn't aware of all but then again, I don't automatically dismiss news articles due to who owns them, or who incredibly who formerly ran them. It doesn't automatically make them wrong nor inaccurate. There's a word for that behavior: prejudicial.

Right, hypocrisy eh? What a dreadful crime.

Not really, but it does undermine the credibility of an organisation. I was redrepped because I despise the hypocrisy of the ACLU and called it a farcial. Therefore, I thought when I came across the next example that shows just what I think of the ACLU (I knew it wouldn't be long), i'd share it.

because an organisation punky doesn't like (why? because it's got the word 'liberties' in the name?) doesn't always practice quite what it preaches?

I resent that, actually. Read above for 3 examples (and if I had more time for research, I daresay I can find more). And I resent people fighting for civil liberties do I? *yawns* At least I supported to help restore civil liberties to Iraqis.

Anyway, surely private organisations and individuals should be allowed *more* power than the state (isn't that the neo-libertarian consensus, in fact?). So what's the problem? So the 'hypocrisy' isn't really all it seems.

I never said private organisations can't issue bag searches. That's their choice. However, it is hypocritical for an organisation to say that bag searches are a basic invaision of people's privacy and an ineffective method of law enforcement, yet use those very tactics yourself.

[BBKing]

Oh, and worldnetdaily has an avowed right-wing bias, which in the US since 2003 means 'don't believe a word of it without a pinch of salt so large it's instant death to a thousand slugs'. A few of the other headlines on that page give you some idea of where they're coming from:

"Negro 'perfectly good word'"
"Hillary unhinged by 'Liberals Under My Bed'?"
"Radical Islam blamed for French rioting"*
"The real Michael Moore" **
"Palestinian cleric: God bless Osama"
"WMDs have been found in Iraq"***

As long as you aren't black, Islamic, called Clinton or Moore, don't want the Palestinians to have a homeland and still believe that Saddam had WMDs, you should find WND just to your taste. Personally it maketh me retch.

* Not 'fool of an interior minister pouring oil on troubled flames'?
** I'll bet it's not complimentary *checks*. Nope, it isn't, it's a smear job.
*** Links to a site charging a very reasonable $9.95 for information that the entire US military-political system appears to have missed. Yeah, right.