Tuesday/Wednesday Ethics Sandwich, 3/9-3/10/21: Movies, Megxit, Major And More

Dagwood sandwich

1. Worst “review” of the Year, and other Megxit Ethics Train Wreck developments :

  • I hate to end one day (and start another) with something so nauseating, but a Times “Critic’s Notebook” entry by Salamishah Tillet titled “Taking On Royal Life’s Racism” (online, “Prince Harry Finally Takes On White Privilege: His Own”) is both incompetent and dishonest. This is no review. It is a black studies professor with an agenda using a media stunt by Oprah Winfrey and the breakaway Royals to serve as her own soap box. Using a mixed-race American who achieves some success in a difficult profession (performing), then marries a British prince with the automatic money, glamor and influence that status confers as an example of racial persecution is ridiculous on its face. This is a confirmation bias classic for the ages: the black feminist activist saw what she wanted to see in one of the worst possible settings to see it. The “review” could have been written before the interview was broadcast; I bet most of it was.
  • The U.K.’s media regulator ( that is,censor and political correctness enforcer) Ofcom is investigating Piers Morgan because 41,000 people wrote to complain about the then-ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” host stating the obvious about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s joint whine with Oprah Winfrey. On “Good Morning Britain”, which Morgan quit mid-show after being attacked by his co-host, Morgan said he did not believe Markle’s statement that she had approached the Royal family for help because she had suicidal thoughts, and was turned down. “Who did you go to? What did they say to you? I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she said…I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report,” Morgan said. Neither would I, especially when such tales were attached to no details whatsoever. Morgan is a media low-life to be sure, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t right in this case. It’s a problem, though, when the most vocal and accurate critic of a manufactured narrative is so easily discredited.
  • In the U.S., the Left will sanctify the Duchess of Sussex because she’s female and blackish, thus meaning that to question her word or character is per se racism. (She’s like a Kardashian with superpowers). The Right is mostly anti-monarchy, so any harm she does to the Royals is regarded as a plus. One poll indicates, however, that the British public is less gullible: Meghan is now the least popular Royal, even behind Jeffrey Epstein pal and likely defiler of under-age girls Prince Andrew.

It’s only because the Brits are racists, of course.

2. Is there a media critic in the United States that isn’t a partisan hack? David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun certainly fails the test. Imagine writing a column titled “If Fox News wants to be a political tool, it should be treated as such and not given access meant for journalists” after the performance of all the other news organizations from 2016 on and expecting to be taken seriously. Has the mainstream media ever committed itself to a single partisan political objective more brazenly than the propaganda campaign against President Trump? Zurawik’s claim is either delusional or a lie aimed at the deluded….of which there are many.

3. White House dog ethics. Apparently the mysteriously reported “incident” that resulted in President Biden’s two German Shepherds being banished to Delaware was more than a mere nip: the victim of a bite by Major, a rescue dog, was really hurt. “There Will Finally Be Dogs in the White House Again,” was the headline in Harper’s in January, over one of many stories cheering the fact that the new “normal” President would have a dog, unlike the weird, mean, non-animal lover on the way out. In truth, the modern White House is no place for a dog—too stressful, too many visitors and strangers— and many First Pets have been acquired as PR props rather than out of genuine love for canines. Getting a rescue dog is admirable, but they often come with behavioral problems and special sensitivities that must be addressed, or they can be dangerous. My sweet rescue dog Spuds, for example, has night terrors, and woe be to any human that wakes him up while he’s recalling past abuse.

4. Governor Cuomo is now up to SIX accusers! Who could have predicted…oh, right. I did. But I’m sure it was all just a misunderstanding, like the Governor says. Sarcasm aside, I doubt Cuomo is a threat to Bill Cosby’s total, but I didn’t expect the Cos to top 50 either.

Added: Various conservative blogs and commentators are chiding Kamala Harris, who led the unethical smearing of Brett Kavanaugh as a sexual predator based on a vague high-school incident, for not weighing in on Cuomo’s alleged conduct. Harris is a two-faced hypocrite for sure—she agreed to run with a serial sexual harasser whose wrongful conduct is a matter of photographic record—but it is not a VP’s place to get involved with state government issues.

5. Virtue signaling at Turner Movie Classics And Disney. If Disney was going to pronounce the Muppets racially insensitive, the next move was obvious. Now “Dumbo,” “Peter Pan” and “The Aristocats” have been slapped with warnings, and all three are banished from the children’s section of its streaming service

The “Stories Matter” section of its website has Disney’s explanations for the demotions. Here is what makes no sense: only adults will be offended by the content Disney is flagging. Children won’t notice it. I loved “Peter Pan,” and its grotesque caricatures of the Neverland Indians went right over my head. Kids don’t think of cartoons as real people, because, you know, they’re not. Similarly the singing crows in “Dumbo” had no racial implications to me at all when I was 10. As an adult, seeing the film through a different world view, I was amazed that Disney would have the leader of the African-American-voiced crows named “Jim.” Still, a lot of Disney’s “explanation” of what is wrong with the films is absurd, like “Peter and the Lost Boys engage in dancing, wearing headdresses and other exaggerated tropes.” Did anyone complain that the little boy in “Parasite” was playing with various American Indian “tropes”? I don’t recall any. Kids play, kids on magic islands with storybook pirates, mermaid and Indian chiefs especially. The Horror.

TCM, meanwhile, is insulting its audience by instructing them on what they can figure out by themselves: this is a channel with a sophisticated, adult viewership. Turner Classic Movies’ March series “Reframed: Classic Films in the Rearview Mirror” purports to explain why such classics as “Gone with the Wind” (1939), “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” (1954), “Rope” (1948), “Woman of the Year” (1942), “Gunga Din” (1939), and “The Searchers” (1956) are not sufficiently woke for 2021. Yes, we knew that, but then they weren’t made in 2021. TCM will have to go through this exercise for 90% of the movies created in the 20th Century, thus wasting airtime that could be used for entertainment. Now TCM grandstands with a silly website statement:

Many of the beloved classics that we enjoy on TCM have stood the test of time in several ways, nevertheless when viewed by contemporary standards, certain aspects of these films can be troubling and problematic. This month, we are looking at a collection of such movies and we’ll explore their history, consider their cultural context and discuss how these movies can be reframed so that future generations will keep their legacy alive.

 They are great movies (well, I’d say five out of six), and they don’t require “context” to appreciate or understand them.

 

Meanwhile, for the beloved Aristocats, they said: “The Siamese cat Shun Gon is depicted as a racist caricature of East Asian peoples with exaggerated stereotypical traits such as slanted eyes and buck teeth

25 thoughts on “Tuesday/Wednesday Ethics Sandwich, 3/9-3/10/21: Movies, Megxit, Major And More

  1. I have to say, I never liked Meghan Markle from the time I heard of her. I never had a problem with her color, but I did have a problem with the fact that she traded on it. I never had a problem with the fact that she was divorced, I did have a problem with the apparently callous way in which she told her first husband that she no longer wanted to be married to him and the disposable way she treated him. I never had a problem with the fact that she was liberal, but I do have the problem with the fact that she is apparently so doctrinaire that she elbowed her way to the front of the one series she was a lead in from being the office ingenue to being the liberal moral center.

    A lot of her other qualities are precisely the things I do not admire in any woman. I do not admire selfishness, I do not like the attitude that what I want I get, I do not like the attitude that says I am entitled to anything and everything I do not like social climbing, I do not like the attitude that I am the center of the world, and I do not like this attitude that people are means to an end. I really have a problem with inability to share the spotlight or to acknowledge that there are people more important than yourself.
    I already said that I was not Prince Harry’s biggest fan. I used to think a lot more highly of him, as I did of almost anyone who served in combat period however, that respect only goes so far. George McGovern and Howard Zinn both served in World War II, the latter more because he wanted to help open the second front to relieve the pressure on the Soviet Union than anything else. While I applaud them for taking the risk that many others did to protect freedom, I don’t like what either of them later became. As far as I’m concerned, it just means they were one step above lifelong academic and critic of society Noam Chomsky.

    I thought Harry was a wild child who had settled down into being responsible. His dressing up as a Nazi officer hints at non-functioning ethics alarms, and his behavior in Las Vegas hints at the fact that he never truly gave up his wild past. Although he duly attended when Charles and Camilla got married, it’s become obvious that he harbors a great deal of resentment of the Royal Family for the way his mother was treated by them. Never mind that Diana brought her own set of issues to the table, never mind that she was no saint, and never mind that the Royal family was not responsible for her horrible fate 24 years ago. the parallels between what Diana did and what he is doing should not be lost on anyone.
    The difference is, that she only married into the Royal family and later left. He was born into it. That’s different, with respect. He’s spent his whole life knowing what he was being trained for and what was expected of him. It came with a lot of perks, and a lot of privileges but also with duties and responsibilities. Unfortunately, it seems that his somewhat weak character did not enable him to stand up to The wiles of a committed social climber who was determined to use him to climb the ladder to the a-list. Or maybe he was determined to use her as a reverse Cinderella to get out of the palace to life on the outside while keeping all of the money and privilege. I just don’t know.

    What I do know, is that Sunday’s two hour spill to Oprah represented a betrayal. actually it represented worse than a betrayal. It represented a stab in the back. When you come right down to it, the royal family is a family business. They are the world’s best paid PR firm. Their job is to be nonpartisan and non-controversial representatives of the state as a whole. There is a reason they are limited in what they can do and say publicly. They are also not perfect and almost all the world knows it.

    That said, it is not justified for an insider to air the dirty laundry in public, any more than it would be for any other member of any family business to air the family’s dirty linen in public. That was an act of spite, no matter how much Harry pretended to pity his brother and father. It is even less justified, and cowardly, to throw an anonymous accusation of racism at those who can’t respond in kind. It’s a cheap shot and essentially an automatic win as far as the media here is concerned. Given Meghan’s nature I don’t believe it. Given Harry’s refusal to give details, I believe it even less. A name, and details, or it didn’t happen. What really bothered me was Meghan’s denial of bullying several members of the household coupled with her accusation that it was Kate who brought her to tears and not the other way around.
    It’s been my experience that whatever a person tries to suppress hardest, is usually what a person is under the surface. It’s also open my experience that when someone says that what they are accused of doing is actually done to them, but that person is trying to divert attention away from what they themselves were doing. To do all this while Prince Philip, the World War II destroyer skipper who put his life on the line for the world’s freedom, lies in hospital, was despicable.

    I don’t know if there’s much the house of Windsor can do right now other than keep a stiff upper lip and continue with their duties. However, it isn’t going to be 2020-2021 forever. Wokeness is going to pass, and celebrity is the most fleeting of all things in this world. Sic transit gloria mundi. Eventually, no one is going to automatically look back at Harry and Meghan whenever the Royal family executes their duty. Will they be wealthy? Sure. Will they displace the house of Windsor as the face of royalty? Probably not. Will the world think of them as the greatest love story since Shakespeare penned Romeo and Juliet? Probably not. Love stories are great for a frothy novel or a 2-hour movie, they are not so great for life.
    This is not the first time a British royal married an American and tried to walk away from royal life. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor died as crumbling parodies of their former selves. No one gave a damn that they had lived or died. To this day the Duke is considered and embarrassment, the clueless King who let a woman get her claws into him and pull him down from his throne, who had to be shipped off to be governor of the Bahamas lest he embarrass the royal family during World War II. She wasn’t even completely faithful to him, or so rumors say. However, she did stick with him for their entire life together.
    I’m not so sure that Meghan will do that. She already walked out on one husband when he was of no further use to her, by putting her wedding ring in the mail to him with an announcement that she did not want to be married to him anymore. Eventually, she will probably not need Harry anymore because she will have accumulated enough of a fortune to last her her remaining perimenopausal days and her retirement.

    Don’t be surprised if eventually she divorces him as well, two in three second marriages end in divorce anyway. It would serve him right when that day comes if the house of Windsor tells him they want no further part of him, they will not be there for him because he stabbed them in the back.

    I will say this, the house of Windsor made it through World War I and World War II. They made it through the embarrassment of Edward VIII’s abdication. They also made it through the current generations marital problems and the serious embarrassment that has sent Prince Andrew into premature retirement. They will last through however many more years God grants Queen Elizabeth. They will last through the reign of Charles, whatever name he chooses to reign under. They will last through the reign of william, whenever that day comes, and they will last through the reign of his son George, although I doubt I will live to see that day nor will many in my generation. If none of what I talked about above took down the British monarchy, 2 hours of complaining by one American woman certainly won’t.

    God save the Queen, long live the Queen, and God bless and long live all the kings and queens to come!

    • “Or maybe he was determined to use her as a reverse Cinderella to get out of the palace to life on the outside while keeping all of the money and privilege. I just don’t know.”

      Or maybe he saw her as fragile, someone he could save, the way he couldn’t save his mother? Who knows what’s buried in his psyche.

      “To do all this while Prince Philip, the World War II destroyer skipper who put his life on the line for the world’s freedom, lies in hospital, was despicable.”

      To say nothing of the fact that the man is his grandfather.

      “This is not the first time a British royal married an American and tried to walk away from royal life.”

      I’m not convinced Edward ever really wanted to walk away from royal life. He made his choice. Wallis certainly didn’t want him to walk away from it. She accurately predicted that she would be the most hated woman in the world if he abdicated for her. Once he did, she was stuck. The court of public opinion would have been even so much worse if she’d dumped the man once he walked away from the Crown and became persona non grata to his family. At least, the Windsors didn’t have any children.

      Meghan may be stuck, too. If she decides to dump Harry, with at least one child involved in the mess (and another on the way, apparently), she can kiss any remaining British sympathy good-bye and a bunch of American sympathy, too.

    • I was going to write in on this topic, and then declined. It’s all so… noisy. And personal. Even Piers Morgan, who I actually agree with in his assessment… The man had a series of lunch and dinner meetings with Meghan, where they apparently had a bit of rapport, because she was giving him early viewings of Suits episodes. Then after meeting Harry, she ghosted him… Which, yes, isn’t great, but Piers spent the next few years prefacing every story about Meghan with how bitter he was she didn’t return his calls.

      I only bring that up because I think it’s material. You said that Harry fostered a resentment of the royal family over the treatment of his mother. I think that’s probably, but not certain. What is certain is that Harry loathes the press. I agree with Piers in his assessment that the reason Meghan ghosted him was probably because Harry asked her to. Which is why this is so interesting to me. Not only did Harry swallow his bile for journalists to be interviewed by Oprah, but then he participated in the same kind of slanderous he-said-she-said that had Oprah reported on him would have put him into apoplexy. Not only was it a betrayal, it was hypocritical.

      Meghan has a history of dishonesty. She’s the person who said that she didn’t know who Harry was before meeting him, but her friends told her that she’d always been fascinated with the royal family, that she wanted to be “Diana 2.0” and had been pictured hanging around outside the palace in 1996. Her relationship with the truth has always been shakey at best, and she’s not the brightest bulb in the pack.

      Take for instance the “bombshell” that people at the palace were concerned how “dark” Archie’s skin might be. It’s an underhanded dig, because even if true, it might have a context that matters, and even if it’s exactly as presented, she’s smearing the entire royal family. But then she followed up with “and because of those concerns, we were told Archie wouldn’t be granted a title.” For context: It’s not uncommon for the children of siblings to the line of succession, particularly once there are already four heirs in place, not to be granted titles, and Archie is almost two; no one batted an eye when he wasn’t given a title, and no one thought the reason was Meghan’s ethnicity before this was said. But “and because of those concerns, we were told Archie wouldn’t be granted a title.” is important because the only person who could grant a title is the Queen. The royal family isn’t a democracy, titles aren’t decided on by quorum. So Meghan was directly saying the reason Archie didn’t have a title was because the Queen thought he was too brown. Harry, not being nearly as dim as Meghan, knew that, and so he almost immediately clarified that the Queen was not part of that conversation.

      Which leaves us with two possibilities:

      1) Meghan lied. And lied so spectacularly stupidly that she didn’t understand the ramifications of her lies, and is now in the undesirable position where literally any amount of additional detail would prove that she lied.

      2) Harry lied. The Queen is a racist, and didn’t give Archie a title because she was concerned about diluting the whiteness of the royal line. Harry lied to protect “The Family”.

      Frankly, Harry doesn’t have much use for “The Family”. He hasn’t talked to his father since quitting the UK for Canada, relationships with his grandmother and grandfather obviously don’t matter to him, because not only did he give this interview, but he did so while his grandfather is (probably) on his deathbed. Even the relationship with his brother is strained; Whether Kate made Meghan cry or the other way around, it doesn’t seem particularly healthy. I’ll probably never know with certainty which of the two lied, but if forced into a corner and asked to weigh the probabilities; I don’t trust Meghan to read me the weather report either.

      • This is a good analysis, HT, and I’d make it a COTD if I didn’t think it gave too much prominence to what is, in the end, a story about two assholes who aren’t worth paying attention to except for the damage they are doing to a British institution.

        • I agree. I’m torn on these…. This is, in essence, a family issue, but because the family is such a public institution, it drags so many high profile and interesting people along for the ride. I have to admit a fascination with the royal family, but if pressed, I couldn’t explain why exactly I cared to click on these stories.

          The only material ramification this might have is if the damage they’re causing sways public opinion to the point where the UK fully divests from the Monarchy. That would be… Financially catastrophic, because the crown land would have to be paid for, but if Brexit proved anything it’s that sometimes the UK will do financially disastrous things.

          • I legitimately don’t know, so this shouldn’t be read with a snarky tone, but why would the Crown Lands have to be paid for?

            As anachronistic as the monarchy is, aren’t those lands technically the private property of the Queen?

            And in a queenless future, ordinary Elizabeth Windsor, would then face the competition of the market to make her lands profitable and if not sell them off until she reaches an appropriate market equilibrium?

            • The short story?

              King George III was bad with money, like… Really bad with money… But he liked buying things, like…. REALLY liked buying things. To the point where in 1760, he ran out of liquid money, was heavily in debt, and didn’t have the cash to fun the civil infrastructure of his kingdom. In order to relieve himself of the burden of funding the government, and to pocket some change, he turned over control the Crown Estate, which is a corporation that owns *massive* tracts of land to the British government. George recieved what was at the time a *very* healthy stipend for what was at the time disproportionately useless land. Oh how 250 years changes things though. The British government still pays the Monarchy the lease on the Crown Estate, but it absolutely pales in comparison to what the land’s actual value is, and the revenues from those lands is orders of magnitude larger than the lease payments. Currently, the Crown Estate is valued at 14.3 Billion, those 14.3 billion generate about 1.9 billion per year for the British Government, and the lease payments are indexed to the profits, in 2018 they paid out 82.4 million. This agreement is held together mainly by tradition, and while I’m sure that there would be a godawful legal battle over it, if the British government were to boot the Monarchy, they would almost certainly want to appropriate the land, and if they did that, it would probably be at fair market value.

              When I said “financially devastating” that’s might be overstating it, but the financial arrangement with the monarchy is a very good deal as it stands.

        • I offer a third possibility with three components:

          3(a) Meghan is entitled, not particularly bright and doesn’t understand that royal titles are not a birthright and can be confirmed by, and at the discretion of, the Monarch (which was something I didn’t really know or care about). Because Meghan didn’t get her child’s royal title, something she is entitled to because she is . . . Meghan or something . . . she decided that the race angle was the best and most effective way of getting back of those stuck-up Brits: “Racists denied my progeny his/their rights! Racists! It’s because our children have more melanin! RACISTS!”

          3(b) Harry understands the tradition but is powerless to stop his crazy wife from doing and saying stupid things so he went along with it (to a degree) for the sake of peace in the $14 million homestead. He is kind of in a self-inflicted no-win situation in that he has forsaken his Royal privilege and heritage, and is married to self-absorbed C-level moderately talented ex-actress.

          3(c) Who cares? My grape vines have started throwing out new leaves and the cuttings I took in December seem to be growing nicely. Hopefully, this year, with the aid of netting, I can keep the birds and squirrels from feasting on my harvest!

          jvb

          PS: The bigger buffoon in all of this is Oprah – she traded on her fame and fortune to bring us this “blockbuster” interview and only brought in 17 million viewers. She was dumb enough to run it against “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” hosted by the always entertaining and erudite Jimmy Kimmel. That is stiff competition right there. Hell, I might have watched it but for “Millionaire” but, as stated on a prior post, I had a sweet, 4 year old chocolate lab snoozing on my lap so I wouldn’t have wanted to distract him from his golden slumber by watching that idiotic interview.

  2. 5) We just watched Disney’s “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” with Kirk Douglas. They loved it, which makes me glad as it’s one of my childhood favorites. There are scenes however that will prepare it for cancellation and those are the ones of the island native tribe of cannibals played by African Americans.

      • ARG!!! I didn’t know that! That’s another one we watched as a family and kids loved it so much they wanted to watch it again practically the next day.

        It’s one they ask for periodically.

      • Amusingly enough, there was a time when big movies would actually promote wariness of scientist / engineer experts who thought their disciplines could solve mankind’s fundamental problems leading to utopia.

      • “Swiss Family Robinson” is a favorite from childhood. I first read the novel near the end of my third grade year when I was sidelined by a broken leg for several weeks. When I later saw the movie, the pirates were a surprise – they weren’t in the book. Were the portrayals in the film deemed offensive to actual pirates? I didn’t think those characters were offered as representatives of any entire ethnic or racial group. Would it make a difference if the intended victims of the pirates were of the same race / ethnicity, rather than being shipwrecked white persons of privilege? There needs to be a rulebook!

  3. 4) The ONLY reason Cuomo is going down for sexual predation is because the Democrats don’t want him to go down for his atrocious handling of the Wuhan Virus since February of 2020. If he were to go down for that, there’d be greater implications and attention given to other Democrat attitudes towards the virus response. (Full disclosure, I don’t think there’s any consistent data that shows any particular state’s approach is better OR worse than anothers…as soon as you find one location doing great following X protocol you can find a location doing awfully with X protocol…and when you counter that with a location doing great with Y protocol you can find another doing awfully with the same protocol).

    • I think he was already teetering due to his handling of the covid problem, and this is just going to be what seals the deal.

      • That’s just it, there’d be a reasonably decent chance a Republican could eke out a win over him just on his pandemic response.

        Now he’ll be out of the way and attention wholly focused on something Democrats really don’t worry about the long term impacts of – sexual predation.

        When attention should also be focused very heavily on his disastrous and actually damaging attempt to manage the crisis.

    • “Full disclosure, I don’t think there’s any consistent data that shows any particular state’s approach is better OR worse than anothers”

      There was no universe where wheeling Covid-positive patients into nursing homes had good results.

      • It should be said, I gave that caveat as a blanket statement on what are consistently practiced by the various states. I gave that caveat because I know someone somewhere would think I’m trying to make a generalized comment about how any particular state should have responded regarding those commonly used protocols.

        Cuomo hands down royally botched literally every aspect of the pandemic response but it can’t be allowed to turn into a general discussion of all the states.

        I don’t think we disagree on anything here.

        • I don’t think we do either. I also think this is a point that the Democrats don’t realize they’ve lost on yet…. It seems like every state that had rules where Covid patients were released into nursing homes had Democratic Governance. That never made great sense, and the fact that so many of them simultaneously had the same awful idea isn’t mitigatory.

          And they’re not even making an effort to distance away from those people: Rachel Levine, Biden’s nomination for Assistant Health Secretary was the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, and during her tenure, not only did she wheel Covid positive patients into Nursing homes, but then she prevented anyone from leaving the nursing homes, and then when questioned about the practices, her response was, I shit you not: “Covid was already in these facilities.” Rand Paul went after her record on transgender procedures and medicine for children, and I think that was a landmine his didn’t need to step anywhere near: People are dead because Rachel Levine was bad at her job.

  4. I only have a small amount of sympathy for Megan Markle and it is almost a laughable point. I do think she was shocked by the amount of racism she encountered in England and Europe. After a lifetime of being told that the US is the most racist country that has ever existed on the planet, she had no inkling of what was going to happen in other countries. She probably thought she could get all kinds of sympathy explaining how horrible it was growing up black in the US and how oppressed she was and to find that there was little sympathy and probably a lot of antagonism no doubt shocked her.

    A multi-millionare royal commiserating with a billionaire about how oppressed they are just doesn’t play well to anyone but the most delusional leftist.

    My wife was watching this tripe and I laughed when Markle talked about how dark her child would be. I’m white and put my arm up on the TV screen next to her face to point out that I am darker than she is.

  5. “Added: Various conservative blogs and commentators are chiding Kamala Harris, who led the unethical smearing of Brett Kavanaugh as a sexual predator based on a vague high-school incident, for not weighing in on Cuomo’s alleged conduct. Harris is a two-faced hypocrite for sure—she agreed to run with a serial sexual harasser whose wrongful conduct is a matter of photographic record—but it is not a VP’s place to get involved with state government issues.”

    Absolutely true, but if it were Ron DeSantis or Brian Kemp being accused, especially the former, I’d bet the farm that she would be all over them. A chance to destroy a rising leader in the opposition party and a potential presidential candidate for 2024, plus a chance to possibly turn an important state blue is just too good to pass up.

  6. Steve-O-in-NJ:
    Just nit-picking, but I don’t think Prince Philip was ever a destroyer Captain. He rose to ‘Exec’, 2ic, but I don’t think he was Captain. He certainly served throughout the war, and saw combat with some distinction; being ‘Mentioned in Dispatches’ is pretty significant for one of the most junior officers on a battleship!

    His Uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, was Captain of the Destroyer HMS Kelly at the same time. Kelly was sunk under him and one of the surviving seamen famously commented to Mountbatten, as they floundered in the water: ” Aint it funny how the scum always floats to the surface” – as best I can remember reading it years ago!

    Great comment, by the way, Steve.

  7. Thanks. You’re technically right, during the war he was searchlight officer on the battleship HMS Valiant (where he got his mention in dispatches for Cape Matapan) and later XO of the destroyers HMS Wallace and Whelp. He would ultimately command the frigate HMS Magpie, but that was after the war. I was aware that Mountbatten commanded HMS Kelly (and the 5th destroyer flotilla), in both the Norwegian and Mediterranean campaigns. Unfortunately his ship, like many others, was sunk during the bungled defense of Crete. He later consoled the survivors by saying “we didn’t leave the Kelly, the Kelly left us!” Of course he’s more famous for his exploits in SE Asia, albeit part of his success there was because he had some talented commanders under him (notably Bill Slim). Anyhu, I’d better stop there, although there are any number of anecdotes about the Royal Navy, World War II, and the members of the Royal Family who took part, this really isn’t the forum for trading them – for that you really need a pool table and a bar well stocked with whisky, well away from the women.

  8. Meanwhile, for the beloved Aristocats, they said: “The Siamese cat Shun Gon is depicted as a racist caricature of East Asian peoples with exaggerated stereotypical traits such as slanted eyes and buck teeth

    See also Growltiger’s Last Stand by T. S. Eliot, with such lines as “As the Siamese came creeping in their sampans and their junks”.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.