Good morning, everyone!
1. Good, but better if it had happened six months ago. Ethically-challenged EPA chief Scott Pruitt finally “resigned” yesterday. He was actually fired, and President Trump should have fired him as soon as it became clear that his pal couldn’t break himself of the bad habits he developed as a lawyer and a politician, including taking advantage of his position for personal gain. There were 14 separate investigations of Pruitt’s conduct, and his continued presence with Trump’s leave undermined the President’s pledge to “drain the swamp.” As several wags said with utter accuracy, Pruitt personified the swamp, but Trump does not place ethics or avoiding the appearance of impropriety high on his list of priorities, and never has. Pruitt’s conduct was also as stupid as it was wrong. He was a villain of the environmental Left, and had bullseyes and laser targets metaphorically covering his body. In such a situation, a prudent individual knows that he or she must be otherwise beyond reproach. Not Pruitt!
The National Review neatly summed up his demise:
“EPA administrator Scott Pruitt had enemies who were out to get him because he is a Republican, a conservative, a high-ranking member of the Trump administration, and an environmental deregulator. But it wasn’t liberals, the media, or deep staters who made him get large raises for his top aides, deny that he knew about it, and then admit that he did. It wasn’t they who made him have an aide find him a discount mattress, or run sirens so he could get to a French restaurant on time. The aides who told journalists, or congressional investigators, or both about Pruitt’s misbehavior weren’t all or even mostly liberals or deep staters. Several of them were conservative Trump supporters who were disturbed by Pruitt’s behavior and thought he was serving both the president and taxpayers poorly. Some of them had come with Pruitt from Oklahoma because they believed in him. The more they saw him in action in D.C., the less they did. Today it caught up with him.”
2. Wait, haven’t we seen this movie before? Many commenters here expressed skepticism at the accusation that GOP Congressman Jim Jordan had turned a blind eye to sexual abuse of student wrestlers when he was an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State almost 40 years ago. Indeed the timing of the story looked like a political hit job, and it may be one whether the allegations are true or not. But now, as I noted in the first post about the controversy, the issue is Jordan’s denials. They rang false to my trained ear, and now there are four former wrestlers who say Jordan knew a team doctor was abusing the students.
It’s still their word against his, but it doesn’t matter. My position, as in the Harvey Weinstein mess, as in cases where fathers are molesting daughters, and in the Penn State scandal and so, so many others, is that those close to the situation either knew or should have known, and often deliberately avoid “knowing.” Even if Jordan didn’t know, he should have and could have, and if he immediately accepted responsibility when the issue arose, he might have preserved some level of trustworthiness. He didn’t. They never do.
And we know how this movie ends.
3. “Anyone who disagrees with us should be shamed, harassed, and driven into the wilderness…” Is this really the ethical position (Pssst! It’s unethical!) that Democrats, progressives and “the resistance” are going to stick with? Good luck with that. That they should just hand out “We’re despicable, intolerant bigots, and proud of it!” T-shirts and save time:
- Exhibit A. 200 black female “leaders and allies” signed an open letter criticizing House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for their “failure” to protect Rep. Maxine Waters from “unwarranted attacks from the Trump administration and others in the GOP.” This episode helps explain why a corrupt, serial dolt like Waters continues to have influence in the black community: all those leaders are as incompetent as she is. Pelosi and Schumer properly, if gingerly (they don’t want to be called racists) chided Waters without even mentioning her name for her undemocratic and totalitarian call for citizens to accost Trump officials when they are going about their lives and show them that they are not “welcome anywhere.” I’m sure Nancy and Chuck would love this to happen, but they aren’t total fools: they are sloooowly figuring out that the vicious post-2016 election tactics of “the resistance’ are losing Democrats the “people with a shred of decency” vote, and ought to.
Those 200 signees haven’t reached that point of enlightenment, won’t,and really think Americans want to live in a society where they can be thrown out of a restaurant or confronted by a mob because their political opinions or job descriptions don’t score well on the Progressive Bullies Checklist.
- Exhibit B. Stipulated: The MAGA hat was GOP Trump campaign apparel with a campaign slogan on it that was no more or less sinister nor coded than “Hope and Change.” The Left hates it because it symbolizes their embarrassing failure and the defaet of Hillary Clinton. If Republicans and Obama critics treated citizens with old Obama stickers on their cars the way wearers of MAGA hats are currently being abused, there would be an outcry against GOP “fascists.” Harass and abuse someone wearing the campaign hat of the winning Presidential candidate, however, and you’re “woke.”
Some Canadians apparently grasp the unethical nature of this. When the manager of a Vancouver, Canada restaurant a customer to remove his “Make America Great Again” hat or be refused service, the manager was promptly fired. The defunct manager, a smugly self-righteous bigot named Darin Hodge, was defiant, pronouncing himself a person with “a strong moral backbone.” I don’t think “moral” means what you think it does, Darin. There is no moral justification for punishing someone for a political statement, or withholding service in a public accommodation. That’s bigotry, and bigotry is not “moral.” Demanding that a customer conform to the manager’s political views or suffer for it isn’t “moral.”
In San Antonio, Teaxs, a teenager wearing a MAGA hat was assaulted by a stranger in a Whataburger, who threw a coke in the kids face and took his hat. The attack was videoed and posted on social media….and many anti-Trump deranged, including some prominent ones, actually cheered the attacker. For example, Marc Lamont Hill, a CNN commentator and professor at Temple University, responded to the story with this tweet…
At the risk of repeating myself, the Post 2016 Election freakout on the Left has prompted people to cheer when an adult attacks a teen in a public place, and steals his property for the “crime” of displaying his support for the lawfully elected President of the United States. Those who would cheer this have become, or always were but once hid it better, horrible human beings. It is signature significance: no fair, decent, ethical human being would do this. Ever.
- Exhibit C Lawyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz has been complaining for more than a month that his liberal friends have shunned him for making principled arguments against some of the crack-brained impeachment theories and the legally and ethically dubious conduct of the Mueller investigation. He is particularly wounded, he says, because he is no longer invited to toney dinner parties on that liberal enclave and summer retreat, Martha’s Vineyard. Well, yes, his lament sounds elitist and whiny, and welcome to my Facebook page. That doesn’t mean he isn’t correct that such conduct is wrong and unAmerican. In a recent op-ed in The Hill last week about his dinner party woes, he wrote, “I never thought I would see McCarthyism come to Martha’s Vineyard, but I have.”
In a sneering response, Esquire writer Jack Holmes says that The Dersh is just getting what he deserves. Holmes thus again illustrates the sick, anti-American and unethical mindset of the Left these days. Integrity and objective support for basic principles of law and ethics are not to be encouraged or tolerated when they undermine the Left’s political biases and agendas. Dershowitz is being shamed by his leftist friends, say Holmes, who is not a lawyer, and clearly does not comprehend the principles Dershowitz had been defending. Yes, he’s being shamed for doing the right thing, by a group so addled by anger that they no longer know what the right thing is.