Morning Ethics Round-Up, 11/14/2017: Welcome To The I Hate The President Hotel! Appearing In Our Lounge, George H.W. Bush’s Favorite Magician!

Good morning!

(I miss you. Jimmy!)

1 What a revolting development THIS is!

Liberals traveling to Washington, D.C., may soon have a place to stay that’s catered to them – an anti-Trump hotel scheduled to open in spring 2018. The Eaton Workshop hotel is billed as “the world’s first politically motivated hotel,” according to Bloomberg.  Its founder, Katherine Lo, told the news outlet that the 209-room hotel will open near the National Mall, mere blocks from the Trump International Hotel.

Lo said the hotel isn’t meant “to bring together left and right,” but to attract liberal guests and those who consider themselves “woke.” “Self-selection is definitely one of our strategies,” she said. “We wanted to emphasize that it’s a place for people who are thinking outside the box and want to effect a change in the world.”

The hotel will prioritize community outreach, Bloomberg reported, hosting a series of progressive lectures and fireside chats and partnering with local artists and museums to provide art installations and exhibitions. An anti-Trump video installation in the lobby will also show footage of the 2012 and 2016 elections…Locations are also planned in Hong Kong, Seattle and San Francisco in the coming years that would have spaces for radio stations, multimedia studios and venues for musicians and artists to express their activism.

“We plan to have new ideas in the minibar — an activist toolkit, for example, that includes sheets with information to help you call your congresspeople,” Lo told Bloomberg. “And if we’d been open during this year’s Women’s March, I could have seen us putting poster boards and markers in the rooms.”

I have been reading essays from various quarters concluding that Trump-Hate is fast becoming a clinical condition. This would support that; the question is how many travelers are this far gone into hyper-partisan madness. That aside, we have yet another example of the irresponsible and unAmerican push to shatter American society, make everything political, and to encourage partisan isolation, apartheid, and warfare.

The hotel is cultural poison.

2. Ah, this couple was made for each other! Kayla Moore, wife of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore,posted a letter on Facebook over the weekend indicating that more than 50 Alabama pastors still supporter her husband. The letter with their endorsement originated before the GOP primary, however. Mrs. Moore deceptively made these pastors appear to endorse Moore despite the subsequent llegations of his molesting one young teen, assaulting a second, plying another with liquor, and generally being too creepy for normal people to think about without getting ill. Already some of the pastors listed have asked to be removed from the list.

The pastors did endorse Moore in the first place, though, so I wouldn’t want to speculate on how many of them would echo the brain-exploding excuse by Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler, who said,

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist. Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”

[Warm-Up Open Book Quiz! Name the rationalizations!]

When I see wives standing up for politicians like Moore, I often wonder, “How can they do that? ” Here’s how: they are sleazy and unethical too.

3. Ugh. Now another woman has accused Bush 41 of groping her during a photo shoot, this one in 2003, and when she was only 16. I believe her, in part because of the ex-President’s spokesperson describing the “joke” he liked to tell female admirers about how his—I still can’t believe I have to write this—favorite magician was “David Cop-A-Feel.”

There is strong evidence that the federal government is Sexual Harassment And Assault East, perhaps not as bad as Hollywood, but just as hypocritical and inexcusable. George H. W. Bush was part of that privileged and abusive old boys culture. The Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck is just now arriving at the Capitol, which is ironic, since Bill Clinton and his unprincipled defenders started it rolling way back in 1998.

4. While we are on the topic of an offensively clueless former VP, I am astounded that in the middle of the explosion of sexual harassment and groping allegations, Joe Biden would have the gall to make noises about running for President. I’m not so astounded that no mainstream media reporters have had the integrity to point out this..

Or this…

…and this…

…and, of course, this…

There are more, and these were just the examples when a photographer was on hand.

I wonder who Joe’s favorite magician is?

5. Ann Althouse, fuming about the news media’s and Democratic Party double standards regarding sexual harassment, writes:

“Anita Hill on Weinstein, Trump, and a Watershed Moment for Sexual-Harassment Accusations” by Jane Mayer at The New Yorker.Trump 10 times. My first question was: Does it mention Bill Clinton? Because the Clarence Thomas hearings raised the national consciousness of sexual harassment, but it happened for political reasons at the time, and for equally political reasons the issue got suppressed again when it seemed more important — to the kind of people you’d think would want to forefront the issue — to protect Bill Clinton. Even during the 2016 presidential campaign — the one Trump won — it was necessary to keep protecting the old President because his wife, who’d vigorously defended him against “bimbo eruptions,” was (for some insane reason) the Democratic Party’s candidate for President.

The answer to my question — does the New Yorker article mention Bill Clinton? — is no…. and because of the Trump-but-not-Clinton focus, I declined to read it. I have been angry about the politicization of sexual harassment for 20 years.

…Hill was believed by the people who wanted to keep Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court and not by those who wanted him on. Paula Jones was disbelieved by those who wanted to keep Bill Clinton in the White House, but believed by those who wanted him out….

Gloria Steinem in 1998: “We would not be doing our job if we didn’t take into account that this president and his policies are crucial to the lives and welfare of the majority of women in this country. That’s not bending over backwards: that’s being sensible. Having said that, if Clinton had raped women, beaten up Hillary – real private sins would not be forgiven, no matter what the value of the public behavior.”

Real sins? Real sins? What the hell?

What the hell indeed. It looks like finally, 20 years late, Bill might finally face an itsy-bitsy sliver of accountability, with articles like this one popping up. But it’s too late, and to some extent I resent the pretense that this in any way makes up for so many years of flagrant hypocrisy on the part of feminists and progressives.

This is in the same category as John McCain coming out after he had lost the South Carolina primary after pandering to conservatives and condemning the state’s use of the Confederate flag.  This is Barry Bonds being condemned for using steroids after he has shattered records, made millions of dollars for himself and baseball owners, and retired. Bill Clinton was the main speaker at the 2o12 Democratic National Convention accusing Republicans of a “war on women”! He was campaigning for Hillary while she was saying that the victims of sexual assault had a right to be believed! He has been pulling down obscene speaking fees at corporations, which he could not have done if he had been firmly and decisively labeled an ambassador for workplace harassment. In important ways, he and his enablers made Harvey Weinstein possible.

I’ve also been angry about this for 20 years. It was my disgust that started me blogging about ethics.


54 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Round-Up, 11/14/2017: Welcome To The I Hate The President Hotel! Appearing In Our Lounge, George H.W. Bush’s Favorite Magician!

  1. 1) So it’s a hospital for the mentally ill, where the assumption is they cannot be cured, so they go there to have their delusions fed in the hope they won’t turn violent?


    Yeah…this Mrs. Lo is capitalizing on hatred. This specialized hotel should be considered a type of vice industry.

  2. 2) ““Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist. Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.””

    Any idiot using this defense as a justification for Moore is biblically illiterate.

    a) There is NO scriptural reference to age disparity between Zechariah and Elizabeth. The only reference is they were BOTH “advanced in years” or “old” at the time of the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1:7; 1:18, 1:36).

    b) There is NO scriptural reference to age disparity between Joseph and Mary.

    c) There are CULTURAL arguments that are made on assumptions from the text combined with other historical science’s conclusions. But THAT would merely be the simple argument that “this was ok in that culture”. In other words, not an argument useful for the modern day.

    • b) There is NO scriptural reference to age disparity between Joseph and Mary.

      Should we also point out that the extra-biblical information regarding Mary’s age at the time of the Annunciation (the Protoevangelium of James, for example) state that while Mary was thirteen and Joseph an adult with sons of his own, Mary was supposedly a consecrated virgin and Joseph was chosen to be a protector of her chastity? In other words, according to those ancient sources that clarify a big age gap between Mary and Joseph, the expectation was that NO sexual conduct would occur between them? How does that contrast with a Moore who sought sexual advances with those teens?

      But moreover, even if we accept that different cultures at different times saw thirty-odds marrying teenagers as okay, in our society today we do understand that there are two types of people who while in their thirties or older look at teens as an acceptable dating pool. The first type is the man who is emotionally immature. The second is a sexual predator. Both know that teenagers are vulnerable to manipulation, especially since teenagers are still trying to find their identity and find affirmation and flattery from an adult figure appealing. The first type of man, feeling threatened by mature women, latches onto the immaturity of the teens, and their respective immaturity tends to feed each other, often leading to very bad relationships based on needing the other the load-bearing prop of self-image. The second type of man actively manipulates the teen through a grooming process that ultimately yields the sexual conquest he desires.

      I’m not sure, from the little I’ve heard, whether Moore is the first type or second. I’d be willing to believe, given he has since married and remained in that relation, and that all the accusations seem to come from years ago, that he’s the first type. He was an emotionally immature thirty-year-old who saw teens as the “safe” women to approach. If that is the case, then maybe he has matured since then. Or maybe he is still emotionally stunted. I don’t know. But maybe other victims of a more recent vintage will surface, and we’ll discover he actually is a sexual predator.

      I would hope that an emotionally mature person would have the self-respect to acknowledge what happened in the past, and if there was wrong-doing, make a properly apology and actively seek to redress those wrongs. At the same time, I would actually like a politician seeking office to air those skeletons and make amends before entering the ring. I can forgive a man and even possibly elect a man who has done wrong, but has actively, visibly, and verifiably worked to reform his life. But if the scramble to reform only occurs in the middle of a campaign, I can’t find myself believing that the reform is anything other than a publicity stunt.

  3. The Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck is just now arriving at the Capitol, which is ironic, since Bill Clinton and his unprincipled defenders started it rolling way back in 1998.

    Would you care to explain?

    In any event, Ted Kennedy was an infamous serial sexual harrasser.

    • Teddy was a dog, like all the Kennedy men. A sexual harasser? I’ve never seen nor heard evidence of that. His conduct on the Hill was impeccable, as far as I know. Also, Ted was young and frisky in the pre-sexual harassment–awareness era. No, Bill Clinton turned back the clock in 1998. Packwood had been tossed by the GOP, progress was being made. Then Clinton convinced the next generation that oral sex wasn’t sex, and that what he did was just “personal, private conduct.”

  4. 1- The Lefty Hotel: will everyone pay the same freight (collectivism) or will there be an “affirmative action bake-sale” type discount applied?

    In a perfect world, they’d make the rich pay for it.

    Yeah! They’d make the rich pay for it ALL!!!

    Cue Zoltar Speaks! image amid licking flames, hit the audio…fade to black.

  5. If I read one more article about powerful men abusing their power to get a cheap thrill, I think I am going to join a monastery.

    • Cool. I’ve been dying to tell this story.

      When I was almost 18, I was at a waterpark hotel with a few family members. My grandma wanted a picture of me and my preteen sister and cousin with the hotel’s costumed bear mascot. We gathered around the bear, in our swimsuits and towels, and he put his arms around us. So help me if that bear didn’t plant his paw directly on my ass.

      For the girls’ sake and my grandma’s, I smiled nicely and kept quiet. Later I mentioned it to my mom. She said it could have been an accident and people in mascot suits didn’t have the sharpest motor skills. Maybe so, but I felt a human hand pretty clearly through the bear fur.

      When grandma passed away recently, we went through her thousands of photos. I’d hoped that photo would surface so I could lighten the mood for a moment: some of my relatives would find the story funny. I find it funny too, which is why I’m sharing. But I also choose to believe the guy in the suit was a bored stoner my own age. If he was 30+, then how dare he use his facelessness to hijack our wholesome family memory.

      That was over a decade ago. If it happened today I would clear my throat and very deliberately shift the paw. Unless the bear had authority or my career field was bear mascotship. Then I’d be smiling like the women in the Joe Biden pictures. I know exactly how it feels to make that expression. Many women do. It puts a lot of stress on the orbicularis oris muscle.

      I have an in at a nifty monastery by the Vatican if you want it.

  6. On the subject of the sexual harassment/assault accusation pattern I’m seeing…

    1. I think a professional statistician should graph (using a different color for each of the accused) the number of accusations in a timeline with the first accusation being the beginning of the timeline and continuing to the point where the increasing curve tapers down to a relative plateau. Identify in the graph the point where the life of the accused as been effectively destroyed.

    2. Then the statistician should combine all the accusations timelines into one average graph that could relatively predict how long it would take to destroy the life of any person.

    3. Then the statistician should graphs the perceived interest of the public in the accusations and where the point is that the public shuts down because they are sick and tired of the constant repetitive pattern of unprovable accusations from many, many years ago.

    4. Lastly graph how the court of public opinion has shifted over the last 30 years and shifted away from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent”.

    Now I want absolutely everyone here to put themself in this position; tomorrow morning out of the blue you see someone on the news with whom you had random non-physical contact 30+ years ago and that someone publicly accuses you of sexual harassment/abuse and then the next day there’s another, then another, then another, etc, etc; Now grant it you might have pissed these people off in your past but you are 100% innocent of the sexual harassment/abuse accusations but there is absolutely no way for you to prove your innocence and the accusers cannot prove their accusations. The court of public opinion launches constant attacks against you, you loose your job, your spouse leaves you, your children disown you, your friends won’t talk to you and you become homeless and living on the streets as a direct result of the accumulated false accusations. Remember, you are 100% innocent but no one believes you because there is no way physically possible to prove it; is what the accusers and the court of public opinion did to you right?

    This could happen to absolutely anyone, what if it happened to you.

    Martin Niemöller said it best…

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Are we going to rationalize away what’s happening?

    • 1. How many unprovable lewd sexual behavior or harassment or assault accusations from 10+ years ago towards someone considered “famous” or a politician is now required for a conviction in the court of public opinion?

      2. How many unprovable lewd sexual behavior or harassment or assault accusations from 10+ years ago towards you should be required for an absolute conviction in the court of public opinion?

      • This is why accusations which are non-justiciable should be dismissed.

        A commenter on another blog explains it .

        Libertarians should be more skeptical of these sorts of accusations and the desire to pile on an unpopular or controversial person than anyone else. It is the attitude that assumes that Moore must be guilty because a lot of people are saying he is that gets innocent people convicted of very serious crimes. I don’t care what Moore’s politics are, he deserves to be treated fairly and not be railroaded because his politics are not popular in a lot of circles.

        Roy Moore is the kind of person that Libertarians once and should pride themselves for defending against the mob. It is easy to stand up for a popular and noncontroversial person. What is hard and shows your integrity is your willingness to stand up for an unpopular person and demand they be treated fairly. Sadly a lot of libertarians are just going along with the mob here. That is disapointing.

        • Michael Ejercito wrote, “This is why accusations which are non-justiciable should be dismissed.”

          In today’s wide spread social justice mentality the masses just won’t do that for fear that they will be labeled as condoning said behavior.

          Our justice system becomes less and less relevant to the court of public opinion after each incident of social justice public smearing destroys another life. The court of public opinion has clearly shifted to “guilty until proven innocent”; the court of public opinion has reversed it’s mindset and is returning to vigilante justice.

            • Litigation is an excellent method of ensuring that society knows.

              As to why there is a lack of litigattion in these cases, Joshua Black, who is a principled critic of the Honorable donald J. Trump (I think you blogged about him once) stated this.

          • That is more damaging than the unethical defenses of Bill Clintonnearly twenty years ago.

            None of the popes and cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church did as much damage to the cause of fighting child sexual abuse as Ed Jagels did.

  7. Kayla Moore was 24 when she married a 38 year old Roy Moore. I’m sure a factor in Kayla’s rationalization is that she’s only a few years older than the woman he’s accused of abusing and the same age as the other three that have come forward. With such a difference in age, life experience and power, she’s happy in a subservient / non-equal role. To see what Roy did as abuse would mean admitting to herself something she doesn’t want to see.

    • As the mother of a married, 23 year old daughter (my son-in-law is 25), major alarm bells would have gone off had any 38 year old man taken an interest in my daughter.

        • Absolutely not. A decent savings, a health plan and a pension do not a husband make. There is an enormous amount of life experience that takes place between the ages of 24 and 38; so much so that it leaves a 38 year old with not much in common with a 24 year old; or at least it should if the 38 year old has grown up any. Hence, the alarm bells. My daughter and her husband are 2 years apart in age. They are young; both of them in the very early years of their careers. They purchased their home under a “first time buyers” program. They’ve recently become parents to two dogs. They are doing life together, at the same age, at the same pace, experiencing the struggles of a young, newly married couple. It would seem, to me anyway, that a 38 year old with savings, a health plan, and a pension should be at a point in their life that a 24 year old would be of no interest; a 34 year old however…..

          • Agreed and agreed. I’m even older than that and I frankly dislike people in their 20s, who I find to be shallow, uninteresting, and frequently rude. I have zero interest in being with someone significantly younger who’s going to bore easily and bore me easily, hardbody though she may be. More importantly, it’s not fair to her if I age and die while she is still relatively young, but left a widow having given up her best years.

            • Yes, and what’s most inherently unfair is to expect someone in their 20’s to have the life experience of someone in their 30’s or 40’s. 24 is as 24 does. To expect someone of that age to know, behave, make decisions, or to even carry on a conversation that is beyond what they know at their stage in life is terribly unfair.

              • I have known a few people mature beyond their years: I know one singer and law student who could out-talk most history professors on certain subjects. I had a case or two with one lawyer who acted much older than he was and became a municipal court judge (though this is a part-time gig) very early in his career. He could have been appointed to the Superior Court before the age of 35, but turned it down because it would have represented a huge pay cut. I am also friends with another musician who left her parents at 15, was married at 17, had a baby at 18, and is poised to rock the world (or so she thinks) at 24. Still, they are the exception, not the rule.

                • Intellectual capacity is not wisdom. Verbal gymnastics do not represent a humbled understanding of life itself. Talent is all well and good, but if it is not tempered with discipline, how does it ever become finely honed? I don’t know that there are exceptions to the rule. There are just those whose raw talent has not been put through its paces; and that takes time. And life experience.

            • According to Wikipedia, they are actually 18 years apart (and god love you for using proper grammar.). I don’t know that there’s anything to explain. I never posited that these kinds of marriages wouldn’t work. What I said was that I would question a 38 year old man interested in my 23 year old daughter and that the life experience discrepancy is inherently unfair to the younger partner. But then my responsibility is to my daughter; not Cindy McCain.

            • He got bored with his first wife, fooled around, and sought out someone younger, maybe looking for a new thrill. Frankly that’s one of the things that takes away from John McCain’s otherwise heroic image. A hero is defined as much by how he treats his own family as his battlefield exploits.

          • I think you have to look at factors beyond just the ages. In my case, I was 23 and recently out of the Air Force and my wife was 36 when we married after dating for about a year. We have been married 45 years and raised two adopted daughters who both now have professional careers and are married to very fine men. Her parents were both deceased but I am sure they would have looked askance at an uneducated Baptist marrying their college educated Catholic daughter. In fact, her sister wrote her a letter and told her as much. I have had no cause to regret my decision and she has never given me any reason to believe that she has either. Certainly there have been some challenges due to the age difference but not that many and just like in any marriage the challenges can be met if both partners work at it.

            • And here’s the thing, John; I have dated men anywhere from 12 to 25 my years my senior. I was very young at the time. (I ended up marrying a man 10 mos my senior.) I never suggested that these marriages couldn’t work. But there are considerations that should take place. You have said yourself that there have been some challenges. Heck, I know a family where the husband is barely older than the children of the woman he married. They’ve been married 40+ years (much to the protestations of her father.) But they are a testament to what can work. My position has simply been: if a 38 year old man would take interest in my 23 year old daughter, there would be alarm bells. Not that they couldn’t be worked through, but there would be alarm bells. That’s my job as a mother.

      • A former coworker of mine has a dad who’s a year older than his maternal grandfather. She was 20 when she married a 44 year old man. My coworker said he was in his 20’s before his mom’s parents accepted his dad.

        As the dad of a 21 y/o daughter, I’d say it would be very hard for me to accept.

  8. On point one. How do they reconcile the public accomodations arguement if they turn down bookings by conservative groups. If it is demonstrated that they turned away a religious group that wanted to hold a pro life convention, does that open them up to financial liability?

    • One would hope so. It’s a hotel. My first thought is, “What kind of crazy person would want to go to a politically-themed hotel?” But you’re probably right that there are constitutional issues here too.

      • I’m fairly conservative but sometimes choice is limited. Try getting a hotel room in DC at the last minute on January 19 for business meeting. Personally, I dont care what they preach because I feel confident enough to be able to separate fact from fiction. Staying in a hotel that may have different political ideas is not that big of a deal – I probably already do, they just dont broadcast it. From a marketing perspective, why alienate a potential segment. Have they not learned from the deplorables statement? I wonder if the management will allow homeless to use some of their vacant rooms each night?
        Not all progressive ideas are antithetical to conservatism. Public education serves a valuable purpose – provided it teaches people/kids to seek out and analyze available data. We can agree its good but can also disagree with pedogical methods, curriculum and attempts to supplant the family structure as a socialization. What troubles me is that creation of programs for public good are conflated with issues of delivery. Conservatives do not bemoan the idea of food stamps but bringing up the idea that issues such as that they may create disincentives for work or outright fraud are deflected as being symptomatic of racial animus or greed. This is not exactly how to work toward solutions.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.