A yucky ethics meal.
1. Why is this worthy of being published? Here’s a long Washington Post writer whine that he ““doesn’t recognize”the U.S. any more, and wants to run off and hide someplace better. Why is this any more useful and enlightening than the rant of some wacko who has decided that human beings have been replaced by pod people, or that we’re really all lying dormant in a Matrix-like sleep? The article is just free-flowing Left-wing bitching and Trump hate that could have been written by any one of thousands of resistance fanatics in the last three years.
Why should anyone care or be enlightened that Ted Gap, whoever he is, regards the U.S. as a viper pit of “xenophobia” (aka “enforcing the law and protecting the borders”), “its saber-rattling” (aka “foreign affairs”), “its theocratic leanings” (known as “religion”), “its denial of facts and science” (code for “not being willing to spend trillions and send the standard of living and the economy backwards based on unconfirmed theories and projections”), “its tribalism” (I suspect Ted means the “tribes” he doesn’t personally favor), and “its petty and boorish president” (so if Ted’s candidate loses an election, it means that it’s not the U.S. any more. Got it. Typical “resistance” member.)
You’re a weenie, Ted.! The U.S. wasn’t designed for weenies. Democracy isn’t for weenies. Capitalism isn’t for weenies. Life isn’t for weenies. The U.S. you think you recall never existed, and if the U.S. has the kind of luck it has had for a couple of centuries, it will be able to navigate around the plots and machinations of people like you, and continue to thrive because it breeds citizens whose response to adversity and developments they don’t like is to stay and fight within the system, not run away.
2. It’s always soothing when someone famous and smart essentially duplicates in print what you have concluded already. Alan Dershowitz registered this reaction to the Mueller statement yesterday:
“Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system. Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different. Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one sided…. Th[e] determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence, and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence…. No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other…. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.”
In a perverse way, however, Mueller’s dropping the mask helps Trump. Now there is no avenue to claim that his investigation was fair and unbiased. It was, as the President imprudently but correctly claimed, a witch hunt, meaning a rigged investigation designed to prove a target guilty, not to find the truth. If the mouth-foaming resistance Democrats seize on this to justify an impeachment push that will quickly strike most non-deranged Americans as a thinly-veiled coup— the President’s high crime was obstructing an investigation of a non-crime in which the White House cooperated and which was, in fact, unobstructed?—it will likely ensure both the President’s re-election and Republicans taking back the House.
Go for it.
3. Now THIS is impeachable! In a really silly “outrage,” White House and U.S. Navy officials confirmed yesterday that they had tried to keep the name of the USS John. S. McCain hidden during President Trump’s visit to Japan so that it would not appear in any pictures. AMay 15 email between U.S. Navy and Air Force officials that included the line, “USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
Staffs have acted to try to keep annoying factors, often minor ones, out of their boss’s consciousness since the first employment relationship. There are thousands—millions of incidents like this. Sometimes the concern of the staff is legitimate, sometimes it is excessive. Staffs tell orchestra not to play songs they know the boss hates. I had a boss who had no respect for anyone who wore a suit that wasn’t dark blue. I can see how someone might assume that having John McCain’s name looming over him during an appearance might set off President Trump. After all, Senator McCain set new records in pettiness and choosing bitter personal vengeance over duty himself as he devoted his final years to pay-back against the President who had insulted his war record. In this instance, nobody was harmed, and no ethical principle was breached. If anyone genuinely cares about it besides the McCain family, which would find a way to be offended no matter where the ship turned up (“It is a smear on my father’s name for a ship honoring him to be forced to share a photo with the President who insulted him!“), they need a vacation.