“Oh, Mr. Grant!”
I really don’t know what to make of this, but I think it means something, and whatever it is, it’s important to remember and learn from it. Now if I could only figure out what it is.
Here is what Ed Asner, the elderly “Mary Tyler Moore Show” and “Up” actor—he was also a bad guy in one of my favorite John Wayne Westerns, “El Dorado”—said in response to an interviewer’s question about why the Hollywood anti-war left was staying out of Obama’s self-made Syria controversy, in such marked contrast to its vocal opposition to the Iraq invasion (Where have you gone Janeane Garafolo, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you…OOOOO! ).
“A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.”
Now, Asner has long been a vocal member of the Hollywood liberal activist community. Presumably, he still is well-connected and knows something about the culture and political pulse in Tinseltown. So I want to know: What can we glean from this ridiculous statement? What does it mean? Continue reading
I won’t go so far as to call him an Ethics Hero, but killing himself was probably the ethics highlight of Ariel Castro’s miserable, evil life.
The state of Ohio can’t navigate the moral-ethical logic necessary to execute a monster like Castro ( I see nothing ethical or moral about preventing society from making a crime like his just cause for capital punishment), so Castro took matters into his own hands and did the right thing.
Oh, I agree that the state has an obligation to do everything it can to prevent a prisoner from doing harm to himself, just as it would have an obligation to let Castro have gender reassignment treatment (though I am amused by wondering whether the advocates for Bradley Manning would be as vociferous if the subject was a sick rapist-kidnapper rather than a popular traitor). But I don’t want to pay my tax dollars to keep the likes of Ariel Castro in food, lodging and medical care, and I doubt many Ohio taxpayers do either. Taking himself out was an ethical act all around for Castro: we benefit, the system benefits, justice is served, and Castro is dead, all the better to make sure some future regime of touchy-feely uber-humanists don’t declare all sentences over 20 years as “cruel” or Ohio jails don’t become California Crowded, resulting in an elderly Castro being released to do the talk show circuit and star in a documentary.
Was his act cowardly? I heard an angry pundit declare so today, but I don’t feel we have any way of knowing that. Personally, I’d rather keep living, even in prison, than kill myself. I don’t really care if it was cowardly or not. They guy was a serial rapist-kidnapper-torturer, and his memory is supposed to be further stained by “And he was a coward, too”?
Is it’s a sin? I don’t think killing Ariel Castro can possibly be a sin…even if the killer is Ariel Castro.
A wiser society should have ended Castro’s life.
He did us all a favor by doing it on his own.
Thank you, Ariel!
Now go to Hell.
Facts: Columbus Dispatch
Some Senators are Red, and some are Blue. Then there’s Ed Markey…
Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, who is at least temporarily filling John Kerry’s seat in the U.S. Senate, listened to the testimony and questioning regarding President Obama’s embarrassing plan to attack Syria just enough to kill a few people and be annoying (to prove he really, really meant what he said about that red line), and then cast his vote on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s compromise resolution approving the attack as “present.” Why? Well…
1. He’s a long-time Democratic loyalist from the House, and would no more oppose a Democratic president than fly…
2. He’s from peacenik Massachusetts (just like me!), and he knows that in the only state to give George McGovern its electoral votes, voting to drop missiles on foreign land that haven’t attacked us first is very unpopular, and…
3. He’s a lily-livered coward and a disgrace to his state.
Markey is also a liar, as his ridiculous “explanation” for his abdication of responsibility shows: Continue reading
“You want to give my store a bad review? Huh? You do? OK, you DO that! And just wait until you see what I am going to do to YOU!!!”
Washington Post writer Ron Charles sure has some funny ideas about what constitutes a happy ending, which is especially strange, since his is the Post’s fiction editor. (Insert joke about the role of such an editor at the Post here.)
He tells the story of a Brooklyn writer named D. Foy, who was awaiting the publication of his first novel and also preparing to be married. He contacted a New York tailor shop, with the intention of having a custom suit made for the big day. The men’s shop wouldn’t accommodate his efforts to make an appointment, and in frustration, he left the following complaint on the consumer site, Yelp, quoting the shop’s promotional boasts:
“This is not ’24-7 white glove service.’ This is not ‘unparalleled service,’ nor anything close. Contract this ‘business’ at your own risk, ladies and gentlemen.”
This aroused the torpid tailor, who sent Foy a ominous e-mail: “I was just made aware of your Yelp review. We wanted to answer your questions but felt you were more interested in a fray. When your book comes out on Amazon, I will personally make sure our entire staff reviews in kind.”
Translation: “You dared to criticize our lousy service, and now we’re going to hurt you!”
If you have been wondering, as I have, how it could have been possible for his party and colleagues to nominate hands-on San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, serial sexual harasser, predator, and master of “the Filner Headlock,” without knowing of his ongoing War on Women (karma’s a bitch, Democrats!), so have I, and so have a lot of San Diegans. Sure enough, it turns out that indeed the party did have advance notice that Filner had a problem (though not as big a problem as any female staffer who came within his reach), but inflicted him on San Diego anyway.
So says former Democratic assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, who told the media that in the summer of 2011 six San Diego women prominent in local politics, business and education alerted her that Filner had physically or verbally harassed them. Saldaña said she duly warned former party Chairman Jess Durfee about the evidence and Durfee was among a group of Democratic leaders who met with Filner to discuss the issue that summer. Nothing happened. Filner was nominated and elected, and the rest is history, headlocks, fanny pats, gropes, stolen kisses and mayoral solicitations of sex from subordinates and colleagues.
San Diego is such a friendly city.
“As disgraceful as Bob’s behavior has been, it’s been tolerated by our Democratic Party leadership,” Saldaña scolded. Continue reading
Deonna and Kimberly: fit for classes, unfit for the yearbook?
It was only a couple of weeks ago that an Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz featured the decision of North Carolina’s Wheatmore High School to disallow the yearbook photo a beaming unwed senior took with her baby, after the school unwisely opened the can of ethical worms by inviting students to include meaningful “props” in their pictures. Of that controversy, I wrote,
“Society sends foolishly mixed messages about unwed and teen pregnancies already, and a student using her yearbook photo to proclaim her pride in single-motherhood would indeed appear to be teen pregnancy advocacy. See? She’s happy! She graduated! She has an adorable baby! You can have one of these adorable living dolls too! “Don’t get pregnant before you’re legal, married and have a degree, but if you do have a baby, we’ll be glad to let you display it like it was your winning 4H project!” makes no sense, not that the whole “bring a prop” plan was much better.”
Now the predictable variation has raised its troublesome head. In White Cloud, Michigan, high school students Deonna Harris and Kimberly Haney were told by high school administrators that their pictures were unfit for publication in this year’s school yearbook, because they are pregnant. They were offered the chance to be shown from the neckt up—you know, like they used to show actresses on TV sitcoms from the waist up when a a star’s pregnancy couldn’t be worked into the script—but the students refused.
The “logic” of Barry Seabrook, White Cloud schools superintendent, was that 1) allowing the full body photos would constitute a violation of Michigan’s official policy that the school’s sex education program should be based on abstinence; 2) some parents would make trouble, and 3) the inclusion of the pictures in the yearbook might promote teen pregnancy. Not one of these makes logical sense, is fair, or just reason to stigmatize the girls or make them disguise themselves. Continue reading
Yes, this is certainly a good use of time, money, and public opprobrium.
The evil miscreant, facing her just desserts!
An 86-year-old woman in Minnesota, Margaret Schneider, admits that she voted twice in a primary election, and attributes it to confusion, a memory lapse (she may have early dementia), and maybe believing that her later vote would cancel out her earlier one. The local Jaubert, prosecutor Michelle Zehnder Fischer, is bringing felony charges against Margaret, supposedly because a statute requires her to do so or risk misdemeanor charges herself.
Did I mention that Margaret, in addition to being 86 and having cognitive issues, suffers from Parkinson’s? Throw the wily old bat in the clink!!!! Continue reading
“Here at Glenwood Gardens, our residents understand that our crack staff will allow them to die on the floor without us lifting a finger.”
Once again, we consider the ethical duties of someone placed by fate and circumstance in a position to give life-saving service…and who refuses to do so.
Lorraine Bayless, 87 year-old resident of Glenwood Gardens, a Bakersfield, California senior living facility, collapsed on the dining room floor, not breathing, her life obviously in danger. A Glenwood Gardens staff member who identified herself as a nurse called 911, and this exchange ensued…
911 Dispatcher: “This woman’s not breathing enough. She’s gonna die if we don’t get this started. Do you understand?”
Nurse: “I understand. I am a nurse. But I cannot have our other citizens, who don’t know CPR, do it … ”
Dispatcher: “Is there anyone that works there that’s willing to do it?”
Nurse: “We can’t do that.”
Dispatcher: “Are we just gonna let this lady die?”
Nurse: “Well that’s why we’re calling 911.”
Dispatcher: “Is there anyone that’s willing to help this lady and not let her die?”
Nurse: “Um, not at this time.”
The 87-year-old was declared dead at the hospital. Continue reading
Also known as “North Carolina”…
The Bizarro planet, occasionally mentioned on “Seinfeld,” was a humorous feature in Superman comics, a cube-shaped planet populated by flawed clones of Superman and Lois Lane. Nothing made sense on the Bizaaro world, since its denizens were sub-cretinous, their traditions absurd, and their logic inverted. They threw away food and ate the plates—that sort of thing, hilarious if you’re a nine-year old boy in 1962.
I sometimes refer to “Bizarro World ethics,” which invokes the principle that it is difficult, if not impossible, to be ethical in a culture where a lack of ethics is the norm, just as behaving normally with Bizarro Supie and Bizarro Lois would be rude and confusing to them. This is the dilemma facing North Carolina, which is apparently trying to devise an ethical way to run a state lottery. That is a hopeless goal. It is like insisting on clean mud-wrestling, non-violent Jason Statham films, or healthy junk food. State-run lotteries are by definition unethical. The states that run them, and almost all do, have traded principle for encouraging and endorsing activities they once declared harmful and criminal, as a cowardly way to acquire revenue without paying the political price of raising taxes.
By doing this, they… Continue reading