Since this is an ethics blog, I guess I’ll have to confess that it’s really a lousy morning, since I was up until 1 AM watching the Red Sox lose to Oakland 1-0…
1. From the “Why do I bother?” Files. I’ve been complaining (too much, but it makes me feel better) about the precipitous fall in Ethics Alarms traffic since the Trump Deranged fled the objective discussions here and Facebook decided to make it impossible to post anything I write. Yesterday, I returned to the periodic theme of teachers facing termination when their naked forms pop up on the web, including the controversial photo in question. Because of that post, and not any of the important Ethics Alarms commentary over the past 12 months that were significant and useful, the blog had its highest traffic total in more than a year. None of the visitors had anything to say or constructive to offer, of course.
This is undoubtedly why Tucker Carlson’s website routinely includes tabloid style cheesecake features, like—let’s see what it is today—Ah! “Celebrate Amanda Bynes’ Birthday With Her Hottest Looks”! Bynes is a fallen ex-child and teen star who has been out of show-business for years because of emotional illness and drug problems.
Stay classy, Tucker.
2. How constant political correctness immersion rots even superior brains: A case study. One of the smartest, sharpest, BS intolerant people I have ever known or ever will know just posted this approvingly on Facebook:
I am depressed. These directives from a Montgomery County, MD sponsored community groups are largely idiotic, and like all word policing, efforts at thought and language control. My friend is a parent of two teens, but I would expect her, of all people, to send them the lesson that they should never capitulate to this kind of sinister conditioning, which is what it is: “The Collective will tell you what you can and cannot say without sanction! Await further instructions.” Almost all of these are awkward, meaningless distinctions of the ” ‘colored people’ BAD, ‘people of color’ GOOD” variety.
In related news, Major League Baseball changed the decades old name of it’s “Disabled list,” where injured players go to free up space on team rosters, to “injured list,” because disability activist groups lobbied for it. In this case, the new name happens to be more accurate, but that’s irrelevant. This was a victory for the Word and Thought Police, and they are not the friends of democracy or liberty.
3. There is hope. Rachel Maddow’s ratings have cratered in the wake of the Mueller investigation final report, as substantial numbers of viewers appear to have finally figured out that she was lying to them for three years.
4. Lesson: Vicious smears work, at least for the cognitively damaged and ethically inert: George Mason University students in a “survivors” group and the College Democrats group are demanding that the university fire U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh from his recently established post as a distinguished visiting law professor. A petition created by “Mason 4 Survivors” (Survivors of what, exactly? the intrusion of democratic processes on doctrinaire cant?) demands that the university “terminate AND void ALL contracts and affiliation with Brett Kavanaugh at George Mason University.” 2,000 ignorant students have signed it. Incredibly, two professors are supportive of this nonsense, Professor Bethany Letiecq, and Professor, Ahsan Butt, who tweeted that he believes GMU thought to themselves, “Let’s hire a rapist who repeatedly lied to Congress to teach law.” That statement is libelous, in my opinion. But this is what Democrats, including several declared Presidential candidates, did to a jurist with an unblemished record of good character in order to satisfy pro-abortion zealots.
Students who could seriously connect the newest Supreme Court Justice to alleged mishandling of campus incidents of sexual assault are demonstrating that they are dangerously deficient in critical thinking skills and the ability to process information fairly. What is George Mason’s accountability for that? Anyone whose connection to logic and reality is that tenuous will be significantly handicapped (ooo, can I say that, Montgomery County?) going through life, not to mention being a perpetual pain in the ass, which has its disadvantages. I speak from experience.
5. Today’s Joe Biden/ mainstream media bias/MSNBC hackery note (take your pick): “Morning Joe’s” Mika Brzezinski has been at the forefront of the media hypocrites trying to figure out some way to save Joe Biden from the consequences of an ingrained sexual harassment habit. Though she saw no reason to raise the political biases of Prof. Blasey-Ford when she showed up to testify about a three decades old, discovered memory to try to derail the nomination of a Supreme Court justice her party opposed. Mika asked, regarding Joe’s first accuser, Lucy Flores,
“A lot of folks will say that women need to be believed and heard, and I believe they should be heard. But are we allowed to bring up that Lucy Flores is a huge Bernie person? And she has political connections that might be counter to Biden’s goals? … Is it okay to bring up this could be politically motivated? Or are we just supposed to take all the words and the fact she said she was violated at face value? Are we supposed to just leave it there and have this sort of attack on his credibility and his honor? Just sit there, or are we allowed to talk about it?”
Sure, you are Mika, as long as you apply the exact same standards to other accusers when the accused is someone you don’t support. But you don’t do that, because you are a based hack with no integrity, and are not even smart enough to cover your tracks.
Responded her huggy-bear, Joe Scarborough, whose inappropriate secret romance with the woman who was posing as his ideological adversary during broadcasts makes him an expert of sorts in questionable sexual advances:
“The conversation has to be had. It has to be an open conversation, as you’ve been saying and as other people have been saying, the argument all women must be believed, period… That was the argument when Al Franken was run out of town, out of Washington D.C., when what Donald Trump has done is so much more abhorrent. That conversation seems to have been moving along. Women need to be believed, women need to be heard, but there has to be due process out there.”
What is THAT supposed to mean? If women need to be believed, then due process is a sham: the idea behind due process is that an accuser is NOT automatically believed. And what exactly is it that President Trump “has done” that is “so much more abhorrent”? Enlighten us on your understanding of “comparative sexual assault and sexual harassment, Joe. Is the theory that if another public figure has gotten away with worse, then a lesser harasser is in the clear? [Pointer: Other Bill]