1. On the matter of whether James Demore’s Google memo was unethical in its distribution, which some commenters here dispute, apparently he took the precaution of hiring an employment lawyer before he sent the memo. This strongly suggests that he was not merely opening up an internal discussion, but intentionally provoking a confrontation. If he just wanted to alert management to a problem, the ethical approach was to speak directly to management, not put out an e-mail that he had to know someone would leak to the internet.
Meanwhile, Google’s firing Demore for politely raising legitimate culture issues belies its “Don’t Be Evil” motto. It also may be illegal: Federal labor law bars union AND non-union employers alike from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. California also has a very strong anti-political discrimination law which “prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.”
2. I noted this in yesterday’s post, but it’s worse than I thought: the left-wing news media, which is to say the news-media, has displayed neither discipline, common sense (you can’t keep signalling how biased you are, guys—eventually people will notice) nor ethical journalism by outrageously misrepresenting the message and the tone of the memo. CNN’s Brooke Baldwin, for example, described the memo as saying “I don’t really like women anywhere near a computer.” That’s false reporting. Do these people understand that anyone can read the memo and see that either they are lying, or haven’t read the memo?
3. The memo’s allegedly “controversial” statement that men and women have some innate physiological, emotional and psychological differences that make their genders (in general, not in specific cases) better or less-well-suited for certain jobs, tasks or fields takes me back to my multiple battles with feminists who insisted that I cast female actors in “Twelve Angry Men.” They simply put their fingers in their ears and hummed when I pointed out that the play was about the group dynamics when twelve disparate male strangers are locked in a room. Do women in such a situation keep threatening each other physically? I think not. Actually, the play is an advertisement for diversity: having women in that largely dysfunctional fictional jury would have probably solved many of its problems, but because women are different from men, not because they are exactly the same, as the Georgetown feminists insisted. Women really need to decide what their stand is: are they different in ways that can be advantageous, or not different at all? They can’t have it both ways. On Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds recalled “The Althouse Rule of Gender Research”, which is, : “Scientists: remember to portray whatever you find to be true of women as superior.”
This goes for commentators, pundits, journalists, educators and, of course, Presidential candidates. ‘We need a woman in the White House (because men screw things up)’ is wise and true, and not sexist at all.
4. In 1993, North Korea was saber-rattling and threatening to develop and use nuclear weapons. President Bill Clinton warned that if that happened, “we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate…It would mean the end of their country as they know it.” There was nary a peep of criticism from Republicans or the news media. Yesterday, North Korea suggested than it might launch a nuclear attack on Guam, a U.S. territory and the site of a military base. President Trump responded by saying, “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
This is, in substance, exactly what Clinton said. It’s also true, I hope, as it would surely not have been under President Obama. North Korea’s game has been to fight sanctions by threatening chaos, and relying on the world to relent by relieving the penalties the rogue nation deserves. There is nothing mad or irresponsible about saying in the clearest terms possible, “This isn’t going to work any more.” What is mad and irresponsible leadership is allowing such extortion to persist.
5. The New York Times hit a new marker for unprofessional and petty coverage of President Trump with its snotty, condescending feature in today’s Arts section, Vacation Selections For President Trump, allowing its theater critics, who have the approximate political objectivity and acumen of the typical theater artist—that is, none—to get their shots in by picking movies, TV programs and stage shows the President might <snort!>enjoy. The translation of the whole exercise is: “See what a lowbrow this jerk is?” The fact that many Americans have similar tastes doesn’t temper the piece’s obvious contempt at all. The feature takes up the bulk of the section. Its intended wit is lame, and the sole purpose is to insult the President of the United States on general principles, because, after all, they hate him. We already know you all hate him, Times. This was self-indulgent crap; it isn’t news, it isn’t commentary, it isn’t analysis.