“It was a real dilemma. I decided to do the right thing.”
—-58-year-old Bonnie Pollack of Manhattan, a doctoral student in social welfare who lives in Manhattan, telling the Wall Street Journal about the time she threw away her husband’s absentee ballot after promising to mail it, because she knew he was voting Republican. She didn’t tell him about the fate of his vote for years.
This photo of a baby polar bear has nothing to do with Bonnie Pollack, but it cheered me up after having to think about her. UPDATE: Now I find out that it’s a toy, so I’m depressed all over again. If you can’t even trust cute, all is lost.
Ms. Pollack’s jaw-dropping admission appears in an article called “The Marriage Problem That Comes Every Four Years,” but is an example of the year-round ethics problem that makes life intermittently miserable for us all: people whose concept of right and wrong consists of arrogance, self-righteousness, and a full embrace of “the ends justify the means” without any moderation.
Let us do an ethics audit of Bonnie’s words and deeds:
- She promised her husband, the story says, that she would mail his absentee ballot after he departed on a work-related international trip that would cause him to miss election day. She broke her promise to her own husband: dishonest, irresponsible, unfair, disloyal, disrespectful of his desires, opinion and rights, and a betrayal of his trust in her. She violated his liberty and autonomy.
By destroying the mail of another, she violated Federal mail law, a breach of her duty as a citizen.
- By interfering with another citizen’s right to vote, she broke Federal voting rights laws, another breach of citizenship showing disrespect for her community, nation, form of government and the principle of democracy itself. She infringed on her husbands right to vote, interfering with process and equity.
- By trying to fix an election by suppressing the vote of her husband, she cheated, a violation of integrity and fairness.
- Pollack, we learn, went years without telling her husband what she had done, allowing him to believe that she mailed his vote as she had said she would. This was a lie by omission, pure dishonesty, a failure of candor, and cowardly. It also violates the ethical value of accountability: she had a duty to own up to her conduct and accept the consequences.
- And now, years later, she is still unrepentant. She defiantly tells the Journal that she did “the right thing.” She is sorry she was caught, but she has no remorse or regret. She would clearly do the same again; she lacks any shame or contrition, or she would not give such a statement to a national publication. Pollack has no concept of right and wrong at all. She is completely untrustworthy.
My sympathies, Mr. Pollack; I’m sure your wife has her virtues, but you are married to an awful human being.
What is especially striking is the arrogance of Ms. Pollack, who is so certain that she is right politically and her husband is wrong that she thinks doing all of this constitutes ethical conduct. How many Bonnie Pollacks are there out there, from either party, plotting against our rights, fairness, and democracy because they deem their own intellect and values superior to ours?
My guess: a lot more than is healthy for the nation.
___________________________________
Pointer: Virginia Hume Onufer
Facts: Wall Street Journal
Graphic: Suzanne Nepi (via Facebook) for the photo, Wombat (via the comments) for proving it was fake.
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Love the polar bear.
Isn’t he CUTE???
Focusing on polar bear…focusing on polar bear…
I really don’t understand how people who have such strong political views that they find that compelling can stay married to people who opposing views. If Mr. Pollack’s views are so bad that you can’t mail his ballot, how do you live with him? It’s like scientists that believe in God. I know these people exist, but it’s just ridiculous.
Does fly in the face of cognitive dissonance, doesn’t it? I have always believed that Mary Matalin and James Carville are soulless frauds, that their passionate political positions are for sale and that they are passive moderates at heart. Otherwise, the marriage makes no sense to me.
I don’t think you can jumpt to that conclusion. There are plenty of people who hold to religious teachings even though they are otherwise logical and know the counterexamples that show their beliefs aren’t true. Do these peoplre really not believe? Are they scientific frauds? I don’t think so. Ridiculous is not the same thing as inaccurate.
Big Bang theory was introduced by a Catholic priest, Georges Lamaître. It is indeed possible and very normal for scientists to be religious, unless you are a biologist (I’m only half kidding on that one).
When nearly everyone was religious, it was normal for scientists to be religious.
Nowhere have I suggested that it is impossible for scientists to be religious or that it is extremely rare.
What I said was that it was contradictory and ridiculous.
—
It’s ridiculous to believe the US faked the moon landing and that homeopathy works. People still believe all these things. The latter is even a common, normal belief. That doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
On the comment about “scientists who believe in God.” reminded me of the quote from the late Andre Frossard, French Catholic author,journalist, political commentator and member of the French Academy who once said: “Do not ask science to answer your metaphysical question.” I think it IS possible to be a scientist and believe in God.
Emmanuel Tchividjian
Old arguments. Of course it’s possible, but being possible doesn’t make it sane. The non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA in parlance) is also a cannard. So long as your religion doesn’t interact with the physical world, you’re fine, but the second you say that you know God wants something or that God answers prayers, you’ve violated your own rule.
No, I think that you’re dishonestly assuming that it is “insane”, or even illogical at all to believe in a God. I would counter that a God of the Biblical sort (immaterial, supernatural, creator of natural and logical/moral law) is consistent with what we know about the universe and attested to by a lot of human experience, scientific data, and logic.
To accuse perfectly logical, brilliant thinkers who routinely win public spoken and printed debates of being insane because you really don’t like their beliefs….sounds like just an unethical way to dismiss and discredit others.
First the Biblical God directly effects the natural world, and does so routinely. This is not immaterial or supernatural. Second, the Biblical God does not mesh with what we know about the Universe. For instance, we know the earth was not created over a couple days. We know that the earth, the sun, and plants and animals did not arise in the order claimed. We know that there were never only 2 humans. The Bible is only consistent with scientific data and logic if you ignore either the Bible or scientific data and logic.
That otherwise logical people hold illogical positions is a fact of life. I have also not called these people insane here. I’ve called holding the contradictory positions ridiculous, and they are. This has nothing to do with what I like and what I don’t like… it has to do with what is.
Since when does poetry have to be read literally? You are also assuming a God who is bound by some linear, constant flow of time instead of time being bound to the universe. Any Hebrew scholar commenters want to chime in on how Genesis I reads in Hebrew?
Otherwise logical people will twist other people’s positions to fit their own preconceived notions..
Since when does poetry have to be read literally?
The bible was taken literally by everyone up to Thomas Aquinas, and he was still a literalist over most of the bible. The metaphorical intepretations have only come into popularity when the literal meanings have been shown to be incorrect.
Also, Catholocism specifically and Christianity in general makes no sense if Original Sin is not an actual thing.
You are also assuming a God who is bound by some linear, constant flow of time instead of time being bound to the universe.
Um… I’m assuming God is as claimed. If God doesn’t make sense as God was known, the correct thing to do is throw out God. What you are doing is rationalizing that God could exist…but only if we change what God is. If you’re going to propose a being outside of time, you need damn good evidence for that.
Otherwise logical people will twist other people’s positions to fit their own preconceived notions..
If you’re going to accuse me of something, accuse me, and then back it up.
tgt, Bible nerd here. Calling baloney on your assertion that the poetry in the Bible wasn’t considered metaphor. Dude, it totally was.
The metaphors in the Bible were recognized as metaphors from the day the pen hit the page. Indeed, a lot of the metaphors are EXPLAINED in the books themselves.
And I’d say that the error of taking poetry literally peaked after the Reformation, among English readers.
The idea that the earth is 6000 years old, for example, is a classic “reading into the text something that was never there” error that wasn’t even possible until the scriptures moved far from their Hebrew roots geographically and culturally, making it possible for Western scholars to think that the geneologies of the Bible were attempts at complete records. The Jewish New Testament writers were incapable of making that kind of mistake, which is why you see no hint in the New Testament of the earth being only thousands of years old.
More: the English-speaking church made up UNICORNS, for crying out loud. Based on an undetermined Hebrew animal reference in the scripture. Then they made up stories about what unicorns were. Then they started believing that the stories were true, because the Bible mentions unicorns.
Yes, and this relates to your point how? A word translation error does not turn metaphor into history
tgt, Bible nerd here. Calling baloney on your assertion that the poetry in the Bible wasn’t considered metaphor. Dude, it totally was.
Equivocation on the word poetry. Is the entire bible poetry or are only pieces of the bible poetry? Some of the psalms are clearly metaphor, but most of the bible reads as history.
The metaphors in the Bible were recognized as metaphors from the day the pen hit the page. Indeed, a lot of the metaphors are EXPLAINED in the books themselves.
Now you’re just lying. Can you point to one pre 19th century source that calls Genesis a metaphor?
The idea that the earth is 6000 years old, for example, is a classic “reading into the text something that was never there” error that wasn’t even possible until the scriptures moved far from their Hebrew roots geographically and culturally, making it possible for Western scholars to think that the geneologies of the Bible were attempts at complete records. The Jewish New Testament writers were incapable of making that kind of mistake, which is why you see no hint in the New Testament of the earth being only thousands of years old.
The New Testatment doesn’t talk about alot of things that are in the Old Testament. That’s not evidence that the interpretation of the Old Testament is mistaken. More importantly, are you claiming that geneology is now metaphor?
The Hebrew genealogies are not metaphors. But neither are they meant to be genealogical records. Their purpose is to keep track of ancestry/tribe, by way of who descended from whom. American/modern genealogies are complete attempts at family records, without gaps, and we impose our understanding of genealogies on ancient Oriental cultures, and come away thinking, as you do, that you can use the Genesis genealogies to find out how old the Hebrews believed the Earth to be.
It’s a common mistake, and it’s fooled smarter people than the both of us, who, like you, didn’t really care enough about the Biblical literature to learn about the context and culture. The problem is that you know very little about what you criticize, other than the same catchphrases parroted from Richard Dawkins (possibly the one intellectual who inspires the most groans from scholars when he tries to stump about religion).
It’s simple. If you don’t know much about something, other than websites and books irrationally criticizing that thing, then don’t present yourself as an expert. You just end up digging a deeper hole for yourself.
“most of the Bible reads as history…”
This is also wrong. I don’t mean to pile on, I’m just picking a couple of your mistakes here. But there’s more teaching, prophesy (which you probably are assuming means predicting the future, but not necessarily), and poetry in scripture than pure history. There’s plenty of history in there, but it’s weaved in with everything else. The physical events described as taking place are history, but the cultures doing the writing did not follow our now-agreed-upon conventions of narration and record-keeping, so you have to keep that in mind, as scholars do.
There’s fantastic and fun debate to be had about certain passages/phrases and just how metaphorical or literal they each are, but you are not interested in that. That’s okay. What you are doing is making whatever case needs to be made, accurate or not, so that you can properly set up your narrative of science being against religion/theology somehow. Of course you need as much of the Bible to be intended as history and literal as possible (even when it isn’t), in the same ways that atheists need to only quote the King James version. Maximize the language and culture barrier; maximize the number of possible absurdities you can claim.
“Science”roved that there is no God? When did this happen? Really, I keep abreast of these things and I wasn’t aware of this. Have you alerted nearly ALL reputable scientists about this, including most of the atheist and agnostic ones? Because they generally would disagree with you.
Do you like your strawman? I did not claim that there is proof there is no God. I pointed out that some religious beliefs are held despite being counter to the evidence.
Just like Dawkins, I’m a 6.9 on the 7 point atheism scale.
And I hereby counter that it isn’t a strawman, because your analogy was that Democrat/Republican couple = Religious/Scientist individual. Two opposing ideologies in one entity.
Science and Theology are in no way opposing entities.
Again, I didn’t claim that science proved that there is no god. That’s still a strawman. Your last comment is one giant non sequitur.
Second, science and theology are pretty opposed. Science is about learning about the world, whatever it may be, while theology is about assuming there is a god or gods and then attempting to rationalize that belief. Theology is directly counter to science.
Says you. But you have the benefit of being able to define terms as narrowly as works for you, rather than objectively. Your descriptions about the intersection of science and theology are your own.
“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” –Robert Jastrow
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…” -Arthur Schawlow, Stanford Professor of Physics and Nobel Prize winner (Cosmos, Bios, and Theos, 1992)
Astronomy leads us to a unique event- a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying -one might say ‘supernatural’- plan.” -Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
“How many Bonnie Pollacks are there out there, from either party, plotting against our rights, fairness, and democracy because they deem their own intellect and values superior to ours?”
Nearly everyone who blindly gets behind a party or a single-issue ideology.
Reprehensible and isn’t it a felony. I have worked for years as an Arlington County Elections Official because I believe that participating in the process is more important than how you vote. When I am precinct chief there is NO political discussion in the polling place even when voters are not present because that is the rule and that is the way to conduct fair election. I am always a representative for the Republican Party during elections even though I’m a bleeding heart liberal because republican reps are in short supply in Arlington. No hanky panky in MY polling place and that includes absentee in-person voting before election day. You would not believe the number of people who apply for absentee voting for convenience thinking it is early voting. No such thing in Virginia!!! People select a reason for voting absentee for convenience even though I emphasize that signing the form if it is untrue is a FELONY.
My point: lack of voter ethics is rampant.
The woman in your post should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
I will now focus on the polar bear. Adorable!
Sorry for typos. I was furious and typing from my phone. I’m still trying to calm down.
That’s a really cute polar bear but is it a toy?
No, I don’t think so.
I’m pretty sure it’s a toy. I did some googling. I’m not calling you a liar. That toy is so cute that *anyone* could be distracted by its cuteness into believing it’s real.
http://joannecasey.blogspot.com/2011/01/baby-polar-bear.html
Thanks. You appear to be right—it is mighty small. I was hoping it was a cute, dwarf polar bear. Fine. Now I’m depressed again.
Better yet…. check out the bear captured by the Moscow PD… it’s on Overlawyered. [I don’t have whatever it takes to do a link. sorry.]
OOPS!! Brain fart! The polar bears are at “Lowering the Bar”; the post is titled, predictably, “Polar Bears Busted”.
Back on topic: In addition to this particular method of skulduggery, I have known couples who agree not to vote, knowing that their differing political positions would leave them “cancelling each others’ votes”, but one or both would go ahead and vote on the sly.
Sometimes its just best to live with the “cancelled” votes since the differences often do not carry all the way through the ballot.
Sometimes its just good to respect whoever it is, and let them exercise the franchise as they choose without interference or harassment. What the hell is the matter with people?
Nope, I’m through with polar bears. Someone also just told me they don’t really drink Coke, either. The hell with them. I don’t think they exist.
At first, I thought…. “Well maybe he was out of country when the ballot arrived and he asked her to tick the boxes and sign his name.” That would give her the benefit of the doubt to some degree.
But no.
He completed his ballot and charged her (and she agreed) to mail the ballot.
What a cute polar bear!
My folks have always been purple- one blue, one red. I finally got my hub to agree to register, and often, I’ll bet we’re purple, too. That’s less weird in normal people. Matalin and Carville are extremes of the spectrum, and weird in other ways, I’ll bet. I cannot imagine ever suppressing someone’s vote like that, much less my husband’s. What’s the statute of limitations on each count?