Malcolm Gladwell Jumps The Shark

I’ve enjoyed several of Malcolm Gladwell’s books, though their quality has been on a definite downward slope since “The Tipping Point.” But like so, so many other relatively intelligent people who have let political bubbles and partisan bias infect their brains, Malcolm finally capitulated to the progressive mob and decided to wade into fact-infested waters he wasn’t prepared for. Too bad.

Don’t you love it when non-lawyers, especially journalists, start criticizing Supreme Court decisions that they haven’t read carefully and can’t understand? That’s Gladwell’s new, pro-gun control screed “The American Way of Killing,” released last month. American law isn’t all Gladwell doesn’t understand: he’s clueless about American culture too (Malcolm is Canadian). In this interview with TIME, he says, “There’s no reason why the United States cannot have the same level of homicide as its Western European peers. It just chose a different direction.” That statement is ignorant and delusional, but I’m not writing about his unfamiliarity with U.S. roots, culture and history here. The issue at hand is guns.

In his book, Gladwell defaults to the hoary “1619 Project”-redolent claim that the Second Amendment was designed to protect Southern slave patrols, which would be quite a surprise to the Massachusetts delegation to the Constitutional Convention. That’s dumb, but he goes beyond that to attack the SCOTUS ruling that the right to bear arms is not restricted to militias but is an individual right. Gladwell compliant is its alleged reliance on an old English case from the 17th Century. He states that Court’s conclusion that the Founders believed there was a right to bear arms for self-defense was “bananas” because it used an old obscure precedent to interpret a law in the 20th Century. What Justices should use to address legal controversies is “common sense,” the British-Canadian intellectual without a whiff of legal comprehension intones.

How Woke and Whacked-Out Is Harvard? This Woke and Whacked-Out…

I’m supposed to turn in my Harvard reunion report on my life since Old Ivy for the school’s “red book.” Last time, I devoted my essay to explaining why my alma mater was an embarrassment. This time, I’m tempted to skip the whole exercise. It’s futile.

Harvard Medical School held an absurd event called “the Pathology of Unruly Bodies.” A panel devoid of doctors or medical experts declared that anti-obesity drugs were part of an imperialistic “indoctrination” of society. Gee, I never thought of it that way! I never thought of it that way because it’s irredeemably stupid.

The panel included Da’Shaun L Harrison, who claims that GLP-1 medications such as Ozempic and Zepbound are weapons of “genocide” against fat people. [See this post from yesterday. “Genocide” no longer means genocide to the Left, so when Israel is accused of genocide, who knows what they mean?] It also includes Ethics Villain Roxane Gay, hilariously the occupant of Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University. She’s also the “artist-in-residence”—whatever that means— at Harvard Medical School and has a column in the New York Times (of course she does!).

Gay (she’s the cousin of disgraced former Harvard University President Claudine Gay, which I did not know when she was in the process of proving what an unforgivable DEI selection she was) has called for the release of Luigi Mangione, the man whjo murdered the CEO of UnitedHealthcare two years ago. That alone should disqualify her from participation in any event that is supposed to enlighten young minds, but Harvard decided she was a font of wisdom.

In the panel discussion, Harrison argued that the companies offering the anti-obesity drugs are, well, let me quote her or him (I can’t figure out which so far, and frankly, I don’t care): “This practice of forcing people into manipulating and changing or shifting how they look is oftentimes about making bodies militarisable. Building up a military to defend an imperialist state…A lot of doctors, medical professionals and folks who collaborate with them — be it through the government or media — are advocating for atrocities that are directly impacting our citizens, but also citizens around the globe. It then becomes about creating this ideal body that you are always being pushed and pulled towards, as a way to represent this patriotism that is intended to indoctrinate one into the military, into the defense of the country.”

Okayyyy..Uh, what color is the sky on your planet, Da’Shaun?

Professor Turley comments, “The suggestion that weight loss drugs serve imperialist, militaristic goals is obviously bonkers. It is the kind of raving you would expect on a subway from someone wearing a handmade cardboard sign and a tin foil hat.”

Not to Harvard’s leaders and administrators, though! Maybe I’ll post this essay in the “red book.”

Oh.. I almost forgot. This is what Roxane Gay looks like…

I wonder why she’s convinced weight loss drugs are part of a right wing plot?

Hilarious. The New York Times Admits It Might Be a Little Bit Biased

The confession is cynical and mordantly amusing. The Times really thinks its “transparency” will support the myth that the paper isn’t a partisan spin and propaganda organ for the Democratic Party. Well, it might be right. The Times is part of a long-running effort to make Americans stupid.

Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston and a frequent contributor to The Volokh Conspiracy, complained to the Times after he was described twice as a “conservative law professor” earlier this yera. He didn’t object to the conservative description, which is accurate, but that in the Times, a conservative expert or analyst is labelled as such but those quoted from the Left are just “professors.”

Blackman reviewed a New York Times database and found that the Times would routinely brand a conservative but rarely label a progressive, thus representing conservatives as “the other” while left-biased analysts and experts were just good old reliable, trustworthy authorities.

Or, as the freaks chant in “Freaks”: “One of us, one of us! We accept them, one of us!”

Patrick Healy, the Times’s assistant managing editor for trust and standards, acknowledged that Blackman had a valid point. “It can come off like The Times treats liberals as normal and conservatives as unique and worthy of labeling,” Healy told Blackman.

Oh, it “can come off” that way, can it? How big of Healy to concede that. It can come off that way because that’s how the Times reporters, pundits and editors think, how its readers think, and what the paper wants as many members of the public to think as well. All the better to elect those Democrats! [Here is another example of Healy’s weaseldom. Also here, in Item #7]

Healy said the Times needed to be more “discerning” about its labels going forward. Right. Its current practice helps observant readers like Blackman realize just how biased and manipulative the New York Times is. Can’t have that! Healy’s sort-of apology is a perfect Level 10 sinister and unethical apology on the EA Apology Scale:

10. An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.

It’s not a laughing matter.

Another Pit Bull Defamation Story From Ignorant Dog Bigots…[Corrected]

I have sworn to flag this every time it happens, which is too often. A popular conservative news aggregating website. “Not the Bee,” headlined its story, “The thing that never happens just happened again. Are we allowed to talk about it yet?” The “thing” was a dog attack that killed a 6-year-old child in Virginia, and the topic we are supposed to talk about is how pit bulls are deadly. The site has been stumping for “pit bull” bans for years. But the linked news story did not describe the dog involved a “pit bull” or even one of the six or seven dog breeds dog ignoramuses call “pit bulls.” That one said the dog was an American Bully, which is not one of the several breeds frequently lumped into the “pit bull” category.

Notice of Correction: I originally included a photo of what one source indicated was the dog involved. I learned from commenter mardybum that it was a stock photo. So we have no photos of the actual dog called a “pit bull” by “Not the Bee” and an American Bully elsewhere. Heck, reporters, police and others are so bad at identifying dog breeds, the dog could have been anything. A cocker spaniel. As long as the photos being used are stock photos unrelated to reality, I’ve replaced the one the post had before with my favorite pit bull photo, which better reflects the dogs’ personality.

Never mind. This is how the dogs get banned in many counties and countries—it was how my pit bull mix ended up on a three year Hell-journey among three abusive owners until Grace and I rescued him.

Ethics Quiz: The Fit Exhibitionist Disney World Guests

In June 2025, TikTok fitness influencer [Full disclosure: I’m biased already] Nicole Arena attacked Walt Disney World after the theme park’s staff told her that she was not dressed appropriately for the family-friendly venue. She had to buy a cover-up T-shirt before they would allow her to get on a ride.

For some reason the controversy has surfaced again, which is good, because I love dress code ethics controversies. Most of my posts on the topic are here.

That’s a photo of the two at the park above, with Nicole’s full outfit in the inset. Apparently Disney’s employees didn’t raise any objections to her husband John Whitespot’s (!) outfit, which seems clearly discriminatory. He’s also a “fitness influencer”(see bias note above: Ditto, plus any full-grown man who wears his cap backwards is an idiot… ) and an inarticulate musclehead as well. “I couldn’t care less if someone thinks your outfit was inappropriate because we both know that neither one of us would feel comfortable or ok with anything that would expose you in any way,” John wrote, defending his wife.

Oh. What?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was it fair for Disney to force Nicole to “cover up”?

The most on-point of my past dress code posts is probably this one, about the fitness model who was denied boarding on an American Airlines flight because she was dressed like this:

That’s a bit more extreme than Nicole’s garb, but the dress code issue is always about slippery slopes. In that post I summed up the problem this way:

Ah, dress codes! They are conduct rules put in place by businesses and institutions because some people have no manners, sense of place, consideration for others or respect, and these codes never, ever, work in the long run, because some people have no manners, sense of place, consideration for others or respect. Once upon a time, children, adults going out into public dressed with taste and modesty as an expression of respect to others, including strangers, that they might meet. The Sixties destroyed this cultural consensus by questioning manners, decorum, conformity, dignity, and respect for others, especially anybody over thirty. Do your own thing! Let it all hang out! Today, a half century later,  people nonchalantly wear flip-flops to the opera and church, while the obese passenger sitting next to you on an airplane may be wearing a tank-top, and hasn’t  bathed in a week.

I think changing cultural norms may take the issue out of the realm of ethics into the generation gap quagmire, but I’m not certain, hence the quiz. The Disney episode also reminded me of this recent post.

Ethics Dunces: The Reported 1/3 of American Jews Who Say They’ll Vote For Democrats

One of the many puzzling aspects of the upcoming mid-terms is that any voter of either the Jewish faith or who is of Jewish heritage is considering voting for a party that has flipped to open and almost full anti-Semitism. I don’t get it. I would ask some of my long-time Jewish friends about it if so many of them weren’t so Trump Deranged that they can barely utter any sounds other than a Frankenstinian, “Arrgagrhah!”

I just saw this on “X” (I guess its time for me to drop the “Twitter”):

…I know, polls. Still, based on my own group of friends, 30% seems too small. What (the hell) is the matter with these people? I know that many German Jews voted for Hitler too, but you know, live and learn (or die and learn). This is an ethnic group renowned for their wisdom and resilience; in other words, Jews are supposed to be smarter than this. What’s going on here?

Here’s the ad that just dropped in the Michigan Senate race for the Democratic candidate, Muslim Brotherhood supporter Abdul El-Sayed:

…Yes, those damn Jews are causing inflation! Funny, I though President Biden said that Republicans were the Nazis.

This seems like a propitious time to look in on a lamented ex-Ethics Alarms commenter, “Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat” and cripplingly woke political cartoonist “Ampersand,” who was long one of the most articulate and engaging progressive commenters here until bias made him stupid, sadly the fate of most EA readers from his side of the ideological divide. That’s his latest creation above, and here is the main section of Amp’s explanation of it:

Wait, I’m Confused: I Thought Trump Is The President Who Jeopardizes Democracy By Defying “Democratic Norms”….

I know I’m a bit obsessive on this topic, but none of the Democratic Party’s lies (and those of its dead-eyed allies, the news media and academia), annoy me quite as much as the “Trump breaches democratic norms!” refrain. It’s Resistance Big Lie #6 on the list; partisan scholars Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have made a career out of peddling its hypocrisy and the fake history underlying it. Don’t make me go through the rebuttal again: a 2024 update is here.

At the moment, Barack Obama is engaged in breaching a very important democratic norm, the tradition holding that past U.S. Presidents rarely criticize the current occupant, and never actively campaign against a President who isn’t on the ballot. The reasons past Presidents don’t do this and must not are many, including that it is inherently divisive, that it encourages bitter partisanship, that it undermines the office, that past Presidents are supposed to recognize as few do the challenges of the job, and that it is cowardly, since past Presidents have nothing to lose by insulting the current POTUS except, perhaps, the respect of decent Americans. Obama is now on the campaign trail, doing less campaigning for Democrats running for Congress than insulting Donald Trump.

He is the only ex-President ever to do this when the ex- isn’t himself running for the office, as former President Trump was from 2021 to 2024. Theodore Roosevelt was a term-long critic of his successor (and onetime best friend) William Howard Taft, but Teddy was getting ready to run for a second full term. John Quincy Adams was vocal criticizing some of his successors, but that was from a seat in Congress. Obama’s shattering this “norm” because he’s special, or something.

Actually, Obama’s shattering this “norm” he’s an asshole. Obama has the gall to ridicule Trump’s construction projects, when, as Scott Bessent quipped, the design of his Presidential Library looks like Darth Vader’s tomb. He’s ethically estopped from making architectural critiques, just as he’s estopped from criticizing Trump or any President. Barack Obama was one of the weakest, most feckless, most destructive U.S. Presidents in our history: his major accomplishment was becoming President as a black man. Yay. But that’s it.

Obama may also be the most destructive and meddlesome former President in our history. John Tyler did join Jefferson Davis’s cabinet, so it’s close. But Barack has certainly proven that democratic norms only matter to Democrats when Republicans vary from them.

I guess we knew that, though.

Another Unethical Quote of the Month For The President! Great Timing There…

Nothing like reminding voters who are tempted to vote for candidates who want to impeach you why they hate your guts…

The quote, uttered ad lib (of course) at a rally in Perry, Georgia, over the weekend:

“Jon Ossoff personally sponsored a bill to bring armies of migrants from terror-infested countries like Libya, Yemen, Haiti, Somalia. Remember what I called them? Shithouse countries.”

I am reading indefensible conservative pundits trying to rationalize this unpresidential and uncivil discourse by countering, “Is he wrong?” That’s not the point. It wasn’t the point when he first was accused of using the vulgar and undignified term in 2018.

I wrote extensively about the ethics train wreck the then “alleged comments” set off. Like so much the Axis media publicized then and now, the episode was based on hearsay reporting on a private meeting, with the media freakout—pretending that no other President used vulgar and denigrating language behind closed doors—being dishonest and partisan. As usual.

My analysis at the time was as follows:

Some “Experts”Just Figured Out That Exploiting One’s Children Online Is Wrong and Bad For Them [Links Corrected]

Where’s that woodchipper? I’m thinking about sending a copy of “The New Face of Child Labor?” in The Harvard Gazette to child actor advocate Paul Petersen, but I’m afraid the essay will send him to a woodchipper too.

Leah Plunkett, the Meyer Research Lecturer on Law and a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, is the author of the book “Sharenthood” (What a cute title! Yecchh!) warning of the risks of parents sharing their children’s lives online. She’s also the reporter for the Uniform Law Commission’s Child Digital Entertainers Act drafting committee. Hillary Robinson, an associate professor of law and sociology at Northeastern University School of Law, is the principal investigator on a National Science Foundation research project on the digital platform economy. Both have suddenly had a “Eureka!” moment and want to let the world know that putting one’s kids’ images and activities online for all to see forever might not be responsible parenting.

Ya think? Ethics Alarms has been beating that particular metaphorical drum repeatedly over more than a decade.* A recent post (2024) on the topic is here. This is the Harvard Gazette today (in part) reporting on this sudden discovery as if the perpetual motion machine had finally been invented, beginning like this:

“A mother posts her toddler’s first steps on Instagram. Children gather around the kitchen counter to help their father make sourdough bread in a YouTube video. On TikTok, a young gymnast performs a backflip atop a balance beam. These intimate snapshots of family life may look spontaneous and wholesome, but they are also often the raw material of a $30 billion (or more) influencer industry — one in which children’s lives are packaged, promoted, and monetized, often by their own parents. When does sharing family life online become child labor — and what protections do children have when it does?”

My answers of long-standing: 1) Immediately, and 2) Ethics literacy, if the parents have any, and most don’t.

But those aren’t the two experts’ answers. They muse “whether a child being paid to play with a toy on camera should be regulated like manual labor in a factory,” pose “the alarming parallels between influencer culture and the adult entertainment industry,” and ponder “the real-world harms that can result when images and video of children are posted online — either by themselves or by adults.” Then—and here’s the path progressives follow as surely as night follows day, the two professors wonder “what what policymakers can do today to better protect kids.” They ask, “Does the platform economy upend one of contract law’s most basic assumptions? Traditionally, mutual assent precedes production. Online, however, people may create the product, generate its value, and expose themselves to its risks long before any contract — or meaningful consent — exists.”

Ugh. I answered those questions 16 years ago when PBS was peddling the child exploitation and abuse “reality show” “Kate and Jon plus 8.” That show’s EA dossier is here. The current social media abuse of children is the same social contagion, just on a different platform and a far more widespread infection. I was substantially guided in my posts by the genuine expert on the subject of show biz child labor exploitation Paul Petersen, my friend who was a famous child star himself.

Life Competence Lesson From New Hampshire: Goodbye, Hanging Boulder!

One of my father’s most elaborate family vacation expeditions came when I was 9 and my sister was seven. He plotted a two-week auto tour of all the “natural wonders” of nearby New Hampshire along with quite a few non-natural sort-of-wonders in the Granite State—strange museums, odd theme parks, and the equivalents of Clark Griswald’s “World’s Biggest Ball of String.” I loved that trip for its random weirdness: it was one of the family excursions I remember most vividly.

One of the attractions Dad led us to was “The Flume,” a natural 800-foot-long granite gorge in Franconia Notch State Park in Lincoln, New Hampshire. There were lots of “wonders”to see there: The Flume Covered Bridge, Avalanche Falls, Table Rock, Sentinel Pine Bridge, The Pool, and a tight boulder tunnel known as the Wolf’s Den. It took about an hour and a half to traverse the winding trail on foot, an adventure featuring wooden boardwalks, packed gravel, steep grades and many stairs. Another attraction on Dad’s itinerary was the striking “Hanging Boulder” at the Polar Caves in Rumney, N.H. Somewhere there’s a photo of me and my sister standing exactly where that guy and his baby were posing above. Yet another was the legendary “Great Stone Face,” immortalized in a Nathanial Hawthorne story and used to describe silent movie genius Buster Keaton. Remember it?

That wonder crumbled and fell in 2003. And on October 18, 2026, Hanging Boulder came crashing down too. The boulder had been an attraction in the park since it opened more than 100 years ago, but is no more.

I don’t get nostalgic over rocks, but the news hit me surprisingly hard. Dad died in his sleep in 2009. Just because something has been around your whole life and seemingly forever doesn’t mean that it will always be there. That’s the life competence lesson.