Ethics Dunces: Salon And Old Donald Trump Date Lucy Klebanow

Stop picking on this guy. He vanished long ago.

Stop picking on this guy. He vanished long ago.

I’m not even going to quote from the lower-than-low-blow kiss-and-tell article by Lucy Klebanow in in Salon titled “My awful date with Donald Trump: The real story of a nightmare evening with a callow but cash-less heir.” I couldn’t finish reading it, so quickly was it apparently that I, like you, didn’t need to start, so self-evidently unethical and inexcusable was its motive and topic.  There is nothing newsworthy within it, and while its unjustifiable incursion into the area of privacy that every human being, even celebrities, have a right to enjoy isn’t quite at the Hulk Hogan sex tape level, it is no less wrong.

This same, mean-spirited, essay could be written about me, or you, and definitely about Lucy Klebanow, by anyone who happened to have a one-time social encounter with us that didn’t show us at our best. What has Donald Trump done to exempt him from the basic human courtesy of keeping the details of such inevitable social disasters on the way to maturity and wisdom between the two participants? Nothing. Nothing, because nothing, not even Trump’s own indiscretions about others, can do this. The Golden Rule applies here like epoxy: we don’t do this disgusting thing, because nobody wants their own repulsed bad dates to do it to them. It’s a terrible thing to do. To anyone. Period. No exceptions.

I’m thinking back now, way back, to a sweet and loving young woman I treated abysmally in college, and I dated her a lot more than once. She could write an essay for Salon about me that would make Lucy Klebanow’s account of The Early Donald read like Paul Begala enthusing about Hillary in comparison. She wouldn’t, of course, even if I were in the public eye and giving my impression of the biggest, dumbest, nastiest horse’s ass ever to presume to run for President, because she possesses the qualities of fairness, kindness, decency, and  responsibility, and because she lives by the Golden Rule now, as she did then.

I’m up this early on a Saturday because my stomach is unsettled and keeping me awake, and thinking about the Salon article isn’t helping, so I’m going to close with some questions.

Does Salon know the difference between legitimate political criticism and gutter-level character assassination?

Does anyone in the news media? How can a journalist deride Trump’s cheap and ugly attack on Ted Cruz’s wife’s appearance yet think dredging up one of his old girlfriends to dish  forty-year old dirt on him is any better?

Does anyone in the media or politics recognize rationalizations when they are ten feet high in neon Technicolor right in front of their faces?

What does twenty-something Donald Trump have to do with the guy that’s running for President? Who cares about him? Who Donald Trump’s age doesn’t look back on their younger selves with regret and embarrassment?

When a man literally, and  I mean literally literally, not figuratively, says or does something every day that legitimately disqualifies him to lead a parade of fools, much less a nation, why do hard-left publications like Salon think that using unfair tactics to attack him is either necessary or helpful?

I won’t bother asking this of Lucy Klebanow, who is obviously a sad, foolish, irrelevant woman with an empty life to stoop to this for cash or momentary fame, but has Salon no decency at all? Is its “ends justify the means” mentality typical of the progressive movement that it represents and so frequently makes look thuggish and deluded?

When did Salon morph into Gawker?

11 thoughts on “Ethics Dunces: Salon And Old Donald Trump Date Lucy Klebanow

  1. When news outlets publish hit pieces like this, they only add fuel to the belief that the candidate in question must be doing something right if this is all the clearly biased and unfair media has got on him. Can’t Ted Cruz’s supporters say the same, after all?

    These stories are distractions. They are also irresponsible because Trump’s supporters can’t see the forest for the trees because of them. Wading through sensationalism makes it hard to view the candidate as he is. It allows them to dismiss even legitimate criticism of Trump as being just another example of establishment left-wing media partisanship.

  2. “Is its “ends justify the means” mentality typical of the progressive movement that [Salon] represents and so frequently makes look thuggish and deluded?”

    Yes.

    And another two words that show how awful ‘Salon’ is: Joan Walsh.

    It is frightening how smugly confident baby boomers are about the absolute correctness of liberalism and all its attendant beliefs and assumptions and how that confidence has bred a scorched earth approach to anything outside the orthodoxy. And these are people educated in colleges before academia went completely off the rails, when there used to be adults on faculties and in administrations.

  3. When a man literally, and I mean literally literally, not figuratively, says or does something every day that legitimately disqualifies him to lead a parade of fools, much less a nation, why do hard-left publications like Salon think that using unfair tactics to attack him is either necessary or helpful?

    The reasons used by Trump’s opponents for opposing him reveals as much about them as it does about Donald Trump.

    Compare these claims that Donald Trumop was racist, with this:

    http://www.impulsetoday.com/donald-trump-fought-to-include-jews-and-blacks-at-palm-beach-golf-course-in-1990s/

  4. So it’s indecent to write that a man, forty years ago, made a minor social faux pas and behaved like an entitled jackass besides but it’s okay to call someone you don’t even know a sad, foolish irrelevant woman with an empty life?

    • Why yes. Shall I explain the difference? Because writing in a national publication that someone who trusted you to follow basic rules of dating decency 40 years ago behaved badly to provide cheap ammunition against him when he is running for President is the act of a sad, foolish irrelevant woman with an empty life, and since there is no excuse for it, this is signature significance. I don’t need to know anything else about her to reach this conclusion, and neither should you.

      What was this hard for you to understand?

      • What is hard for me to understand is how somebody can make a claim to know about another person’s life and character without actually knowing the person at all.
        Regardless, I think we both know that your intent here was not to make a statement about her life and character but to level an insult. Why not admit it? You’re angry that she revealed some minor detail about a date that went sideways and for you that is an unforgivable sin.
        Since you seem to be okay with casting aspersions about others based on zero knowledge of their lives why not let me have a go. My guess is that you’ve had a few dates go sideways in the past and been humiliated by more than one woman and this has made you ultra sensitive when women tell tales out of school. How’d I do?

        • You don’t appear to comprehend the objective of this blog, or much of anything, frankly.

          I am an ethicist. My job is to help guide people to perfect the idea from telling right from wrong. People like you–that is to say, clueless about how such analysis works in the functioning of mature, trustworthy human beings, naturally default to the visceral, emotional explanation of all things, because that is how YOU think. You “reason” with rationalizations and feelings, and thus are incapable of any ethical comprehension at all. you are the problem this blog is trying to address.

          I flagged the conduct because it is a red-line Golden Rule breach, mean-spirited, unfair, and without any value to anyone except the individual seeking fame and probably a check. I don’t need to have any identification with either party to make that call—it’s wrong. Hauling out private encounters and conversations and revealing them to strangers in order to embarrass another is wrong…that’s what unethical means. It makes societal trust harder, and harms every one. I point this out so an “ethics alarm” will sound when some poorly raised naif, like you, is tempted to engage in thoughtless conduct,and maybe realize that it’s wrong.

          People don’t engage in calculated bad conduct like this unless they have a flawed character. The conduct is sufficient for the diagnosis—I don’t need to “know her”: ethical people never do this kind of thing. No, I was not insulting her—I couldn’t give two barfs about her. The point is that she and Salon are acting unethically, and we should agree as a culture about this, because it is wrong.

          No, I have not had dates go bad. No, nobody ever did this to me, because I don’t date creeps. What are you, 12? However old you are, you trigger the rare “too stupid to comment on Ethics Alarms” rule.

          Get lost. You’re banned. I wasted too much time on you already.

          • Update: Goalie Dave returned with a rather reasonable post laying out how I could have chastised Lucy without attacking her character. If this had been his initial post or even the second one, I would not have banned him. The argument for moderation is fair. The problem is that Lucy wasn’t picked out of the air—she had to approach Salon with a kiss and tell proposal. I do not believe a fair and decent person does that. I believe only a mean spirited person seeking publicity and money does that. I stand by my “harsh” characterization.

  5. The main problem with your post is that you didn’t finish reading hers ( “I couldn’t finish reading it, so quickly was it apparently that I, like you, didn’t need to start, so self-evidently unethical and inexcusable was its motive and topic. There is nothing newsworthy within it”) You should at least have read it all before commenting. I think that would have been the ethical thing to do. Anyway, turns out he didn’t have the cash to pay for dinner so she paid. He promised to pay her back several times and did not. This is a pattern for this man who is not just a celebrity but our future President. And precisely because he is more than just someone who entertains us, but rather a person who will have a great deal to say over how our lives are led we do in fact have a right to his backstory, which informs on who he is today.

    • No, there was no reason to read it at all, because, as I steted clear enough for most sentient readers to grasp, it doesn’t matter what his transgression was, short of beating her up. It was a date. So he stiffed her–so what? It’s between them. It’s not signature significance. It’s not newsworthy, the late hit by an opportunistic old date is scummy and unfair, and what I wrote applies exactly:

      What does twenty-something Donald Trump have to do with the guy that’s running for President? Who cares about him? Who Donald Trump’s age doesn’t look back on their younger selves with regret and embarrassment?

      It doesn’t tell us a thing about Trump today, except in the context of confirmation bias, and its a breach of trust. You apparently want college students, in addition to signing consent to sex forms and having them notarized, to be forced into also making dates sign confidentiality agreements. No 20 year-old’s poor date conduct “informs on who he is” almost 5 decades later.

      Bad comment.

Leave a Reply to Goalie Dave Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.