Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 8/30/18: Double Standards, Signature Significance, Facebook Tricks, And Pettiness From Beyond The Grave!

Gliddy glup gloopy!!

1. Tennis Ethics: Yes, I’d call this a double standard…When I saw the headline at AOL— “The US Open has been accused of sexism after a female tennis player was slapped with a code violation for changing her top in the middle of a match”—I assumed that this was another bare-breasts equality story. No, it was even stupider than that. At the U.S. Open at Flushing Meadows this week,  Alizé Cornet was playing Swedish star Johanna Larsson when Cornet realized she  had put her her top on backwards during a break.

So she quickly fixed the wardrobe malfunction on the court, briefly exposing her black sports bra. The Horror. The umpire slapped Cornet with a code violation, unsportsmanlike conduct. But male players frequently remove their shirts on the sidelines, and usually aren’t wearing any bra at all. Indeed, male player Novak Djokovic  removed his shirt on the same day Cornet received her warning. Women’s Tennis Association rules state that women are not allowed to change clothes while on the court, but there is no similar rule for men.

2. Signature significance for an unethical politician. (But it’s Andrew Cuomo, so we knew that anyway.) During the New York  gubernatorial candidates’ debate  between Governor Andrew Cuomo and actress-turned-politician Cynthia Nixon, there was this exchange,

Cuomo: Excuse me, can you stop interrupting? 

Nixon: Can you stop lying?

Cuomo: Yeah, as soon as you do!

The audience thought this was funny.

New Yorkers.

3. Today’s  alarming “Nah, [enter Social media of mega-tech company here]  doesn’t abuse its power 0r manipulate information for a political agenda! Why would anyone suggest such a thing?” note:

NPR, to its credit, published an investigative reporting piece debunking a popular anti-gun fake stat, one that David Hogg et al. have wielded repeatedly: the U.S. Education Department’s claim that in the 2015-2016 school year, “nearly 240 schools … reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.”  The NPR investigation findings:

“…NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened. Child Trends, a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization, assisted NPR in analyzing data from the government’s Civil Rights Data Collection.

We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.

In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn’t confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn’t meet the government’s parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn’t respond to our inquiries.

“When we’re talking about such an important and rare event, [this] amount of data error could be very meaningful,” says Deborah Temkin, a researcher and program director at Child Trends.

Gee, ya think?

This statistic has been disputed before, but since the challenges came from conservative news media, the NRA or other Second Amendment supporters, the mainstream media kept using it, and I’m sure the Parkland kids will keep using it anyway, since facts seem to have little importance to them. National Public Radio, however, has been resolutely anti-gun for decades, and never saw a liberal cause it didn’t admire.

When a Facebook user shared the NPR article on Facebook, however, it was removed because, as Facebook informed him,  “it looks like spam and [it] doesn’t follow our Community Standards.” See?

Again: You cannot trust these companies or the people who run them.

4. Be proud, John McCain fans! Striking from beyond the grave, Senator McCain won the pettiness war with President Trump. That’s hard to do, but McCain was the man to do it.

While my Facebook friends, few of whom (if any) voted for McCain (I did, though I’m pretty sure he would have been an awful President, because I knew he was going to lose big, so my vote was a symbolic expression of respect and sympathy), nor complained when the Washington Post smeared him with a front page hit piece about rumors that he had an “inappropriate relationship” with a female lobbyist (I did), nor were troubled when their party used ageist insults during the the 2008 campaign (I wrote about it several times) were horrified that the White House flag only flew at half mast for one day in McCain’s honor, none appear to be troubled about McCain’s orders that Sarah Palin be barred from his funeral. Maybe this isn’t as quite as petty and mean as McCain snubbing the President of the United Sates; I’m torn. Both should have been welcome, but Palin, unlike Trump, has never done anything but praise McCain, even after he took a gratuitous shot at her in his autobiography.

On the other hand, the conservative blogger narrative that McCain ruined Palin’s promising political career by exposing her to prime time before she was “ready” is absurd historical revisionism. Palin is entirely responsible for her career botch. A smarter, more diligent, more principled politician could have turned her national exposure in 2008 into a launching pad for a successful life in public service. John McCain didn’t make her resign as governor; he didn’t stop her from getting her facts right before she shot off her mouth. He didn’t make her choose a lucrative celebrity monetizing strategy rather than a serious dedication to bettering her country.

26 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 8/30/18: Double Standards, Signature Significance, Facebook Tricks, And Pettiness From Beyond The Grave!

  1. Stop looking around. Follow the herd, even if it is going off a cliff.

    Performed the “idiot” Google search and, despite protestations about IP addresses getting different results based on IP address past behavior, I got over 90% images on page 1 of President Trump. Nah, that’s just a coincidence.

  2. As near as I can tell, John McCain could be one ornery son of a bitch. He would have been a disaster as President. Trump tosses verbal squibs, but he seem pretty steady policy wise. Execution isn’t always spot on, but the general direction seems sound and consistent and in line with what he campaigned on.

  3. 1. The big question is… will Cornet sue? I guess it depends on haw deep a progressive she is, if she is. Seems she has a case.

    2. New York citizens assume a politician is lying during a debate… good to know. This is what is known as ‘part of the problem’ we have with our politicians, on both sides of the aisle. Signature Significance in a Constitutional Republic, and the fault of the citizens.

    3. NPR’s funding is always in jeopardy when Democrats are out of poser, and they need cover. Taking out low hanging fruit allows them to say “See? we are unbiased”

    4. Still holding my fire where the corpse formerly known as John McCain is concerned, until said body is safely in the ground. Palin, on the other hand, was her own worst enemy. That does not excuse how progressives treated her, when progressive politician women have been equally bad.

    5. There was no 5.

  4. “nor complained when the Washington Post smeared him with a front page hit piece about rumors that he had an “inappropriate relationship” with a female lobbyist (I did)”

    Though the clear parallelism of your three thoughts indicates that the parenthetical comments apply to the initial verb of each of the three thoughts, the extra length of the middle thought renders your parenthetical potentially difficult to interpret…with somewhat concerning implications.

  5. In Facebook’s partial defense, one of his “friends” was probably too cowardly to confront him about the NPR article, so flagged it as spam.

  6. Concluding that NPR would never run a piece questioning the anti-gun narrative is a natural mistake. “That must be another site mimicing NPR to fool the public! Fake News!”

  7. Another issue to write about.

    I have to tell you that, as much as I despised Clinton, I grudgingly admired Bumpers’ skill and the validity of his argument. He made an excellent and persuasive point about the potential harm to the nation and our faith in the inviolability of the electoral process that would result from Clinton’s removal from office. Bumpers’ words rang true then, and easily translate into a powerful and utterly prescient indictment of those who today seek to undo the outcome of the 2016 presidential election and to destroy the president and bankrupt and imprison his supporters and associates.


    But, if the Democrats vote articles of impeachment for whatever silly reason, they will face the same daunting jury problem that defeated the brilliant Asa Hutchinson and the other House managers in 1999 as they presented their well-founded and overwhelming case against Clinton. Impeachment in the House is one thing, but conviction by a two-thirds majority of the Senate is quite another. Regardless of its substance or lack thereof, the Democrats’ case against Trump will not succeed as long as there are 34 senatorial votes against conviction. Just as Republican party loyalty will dictate the outcome, the wise words of Dale Bumpers should comprise a compelling argument, regardless of party affiliation, as to why the removal of President Trump from office would be a national disaster.

    • Very interesting. I am probably considered conservative, but I claim to be moderate.

      At the time, I think I thought the impeachment of Clinton was permissible, but did not (I don’t think) pass judgment on the wisdom of impeachment. I think his argument was right.

      Clinton’s impeachment was permissible (but, politically, anyone can be impeached), but was a bad idea. The same could probably be said about Andrew Johnson. Nixon, however, is different. He was smart enough to resign.

      (Factoring into my reasoning for the above comments is the fact that Senators are no longer appointed by the States. That provision did insulate Senators from the passions of the public. While that system did have its own faults, it really shows that the Founders has good instincts. Here is a challenge: if someone complains about Citizens United, suggest that repeal of the 17th Amendment would do more to get big money out of politics. After Clinton, impeachment will be on the table with respect to any President if money from one state can influence senators in another state. )


      • Very poorly written comment, JutGory. I get your point, but just barely. Don’t try commenting on your phone. You obviously suck at it.

  8. #3 I have a “Home” page that includes various RSS feeds. One of these is Google News, which shows a periodically changing list/links for about five news articles as their “top stories”. Over the past 24 hours or so, I’ve randomly checked the feed, and recorded what the sources were. They were:
    1) NYT / WAPo / NYT / CNN / USA Today
    2) USAT-CNN / WSJ / NYT / NYPost / CNN
    3) NYT / NYT / AZ Central / USAT / HuffPo
    4) WaPo / CNN / NYT / WaPo / CNN

    This pretty much matches the results from when I’ve done this experiment previously. Of the articles themselves, most contained at least some, if not a great deal, of anti-Trump “news”, although a few were neutral (or relatively so), like the AZ Central piece letting us know that “McCain liked sports”, and USA Today telling us “Hurricanes a-coming!”. I must just check at all the wrong times to have missed where they include a link to a Fox article.

    And, somehow, they seem to have overlooked THIS:

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 )

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.