No, the Ethics Dunce President of the headline isn’t Joe Biden, despite the photo above of him bizarrely lowering his mask to shout at someone during the 9-11 ceremony. Does Joe even know how masks are supposed to work? If he doesn’t understand that, what business does he have dictating how citizens need to protect themselves and others from the Wuhan virus
? Anyway, it’s not Joe, and it’s not Clinton or Obama either. No, it’s not even Donald Trump, though accepting cash to provide live commentary along with his son on a pay-per-view stunt fight between 58-year-old Evander Holyfield (retired for a decade) and a 44-year-old mixed martial artist, Vitor Belfort on the 20th anniversary of the attacks is about as undignified an activity by a former POTUS as I can imagine. It’s—drum-roll!— George W. Bush!
But I’ll get to him in a minute, first let’s identify the unethical principal.
That would be the principal of Eastlake High School in Sammamish, Washington—Oh! Washington! It all makes sense now!— Chris Bede, who cancelled a Patriot’s Day theme at the school’s football game the day before the 20th anniversary. Students wanted to do something to commemorate the tragedy, and were prepared to wear red, white and blue.
Oh NO! The colors of the AMERICAN FLAG!
After conferring with staff, however, Bede put the kibosh on the tribute. “Our leadership teachers made this decision and explained it to students,” Bede wrote. “I know tomorrow is 9/11 and understand the sacrifice and values our flag represents, but I think they just did not want to unintentionally cause offense to some who see it differently.”
You know, like all those students in the Al Qida and “1619” clubs.
The principal is a weenie and an idiot, and cannot be trusted to oversee koi pond feeding, much less education.
NOW let’s consider former President George W. Bush, who for some strange reason decided to give a rare public speech to commemorate the event that dominated his terms in office, at least until the economy crashed. Bush spoke at a ceremony for Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
His speech was partly an effort to re-frame his own role in not just one but two foreign policy fiascos, but worse, it involved an embrace of the ridiculous Big Lie that equivalence exists between the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 and the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021. He said in part,
“And we have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within. There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit. And it is our continuing duty to confront them.“
It is clear what Bush was referring to, and he didn’t have the courage of his convictions to be specific, giving him plausible deniability. There is little doubt, is there? This false comparison has been part of the Trump Deranged narrative for months. And, when you think about it, the two events are eerily similar. Consider: the 2001 attacks killed roughly 3,000 people, brought down two skyscrapers and several other buildings, destroyed part of the Pentagon, crashed four passenger jetliners, and sparked two wars. Its cost in taxpayer funds was many billions; in losses to business and the economy, billions more. The January 6 riot caused the shooting death of one rioter at the hands of police and the “acute amphetamine intoxication” death of another rioter. While the 9/11 attackers were mass murderers, the Capitol rioters have been charged with “Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building.” Parts of the Capitol were ransacked, but the Capitol stands, and Congress finished its election certification work the same night.
It is clear to me that this is just one more manifestation of the Bush strain of the Trump Derangement virus, which began raging across the Bush and Cheney families while infecting the Bush camp acolytes like the neocons, Michael Gerson and Richard Painter. This all occured during the Republican candidates debates, when Trump was mean to Jeb while insulting George. No doubt, this was another one of Trump’s reckless self-inflicted wounds, like his gratuitous insults to John McCain. Nonetheless, bias makes you stupid, and George Bush was never all that swift to begin with. In his case, family loyalty and personal pique caused him to spread absurd anti-Trump, anti-conservative, anti-Republican defamation.
Ethics Alarms 
Bush 43’s policy of remaining silent after he left office was a good one. Too bad he’s now opened his mouth and removed all doubt.
As to intellect, it’s more than a little likely, I think, that he was a legacy at Yale, and that his business success in Texas may have had more than a little to do with the Bush family ties to Texas and big oil there.
He needs to go back to Crawford, I think.
“a little likely”? The son of a prominent politician like Bush, Al Gore, Mario Cuomo—will virtually never be rejected by an Ivy League school
I did write “more than,” though.
Jack,
Should be “a little likely”
Bill
And it should be “Al-Qaeda”.
I once checked all the various spellings. Al Qida was one of them.
Also Al Kida.
It doesn’t help that the original name was written in Arabic and the Arabic alphabet doesn’t directly translate to the Roman alphabet. The name literally means “the base.”. The same goes for translations from East Asian ideograms, there is no correct English spelling. The ancient Chinese goddess of mercy can be spelled Kuan Yin, Guanyin, and a half dozen other ways.
I love the update on the Washington article with the statement from the superintendent:
“While there was no ill-intent behind the decision…” I guess they didn’t cackle maniacally about it….”As we move forward, we will review the processes used to make such determinations, and ensure appropriate protocols are in place…” they’ didn’t say the decision was wrong, and after the review, they likely won’t change a thing.
Whenever speakers are not specific, we can take their words to mean whatever we want them to mean. With this view, we can be sure Bush was not talking about the ideologies that motivate some well-organized and some loosely-organized groups, such as the Oathkeepers, Three Percenters, Proud Boys, and Antifa. He was not talking about the fact that domestic violence has increased substantially in recent years, especially in 2020. He was not talking about the ‘mostly peaceful’ demonstrations raging throughout the country in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. Nope. He was just talking about January 6.
It does not appear that there is any love lost between Bush and Trump, but at least some of what is referred to as Trump derangement actually is an accurate perception of Trump.
Further, it is a stretch to see anti-Republican and especially anti-conservative defamation in that Bush speech. Republican values seem to be somewhat malleable, depending on the office seeker, but Bush was not defaming those who believe in the rule of law, the Constitution, and civil society.
I think that’s fair, except that Trump is the most recent Republican President and favored by a large measure of the GOP’s “members.” For good of ill, he is the current face of the Republican Party. He can’t slice it that thin: if his description is an attack on Trump, it has to be an attack on the party.
This is to some extent tit-for-tat: it is why Reagan maintained that it was dangerous for Republicans to attack each other. Ronnie even called it a “Commandment” never to do so. If Trump had followed that Commandment, he would have had far fewer Never-Trumpers.
Trump believes in the rule of law, the Constitution, and civil society. He just doesn’t understand what any of those things are.
This is a bit of a deflection.
Jack wrote, “Trump believes in the rule of law, the Constitution, and civil society. He just doesn’t understand what any of those things are.”
This immediately got my brain to regurgitate the following,
“Progressives have shown us over the last 5 years that they no longer believe in the rule of law, the Constitution, and civil society but they do understand what all of those things are and they intentionally undermine them anyway.”
The ethical question would now be who would it be more ethical to support, the one that believes in the rule of law, the Constitution, and civil society but doesn’t understand them, or the one that understands the rule of law, the Constitution, and civil society but has been shown to intentionally undermine them?
I probably should have put a “/s” after January 6. I am not always as clear as I should be.
The issue with the display of patriotic colors was raised probably a good 5 years ago here. Two high schools down the coast area were playing football on September 11th and they wanted to not only do a patriotic display that involve the football players running out onto the field at the beginning of the game all carrying American flags or flags of the military and emergency services, together with a tribute to local police officers who had apprehended the perpetrator of the New York bombing Marathon who had fled to New Jersey. I think local veterans and first responders would also have been involved. There was apparently much debate before and after as to whether they should do this and whether it should have been done, in light of the possibility of offending some of the students, families, or local people who might have felt differently about this patriotic rah-rah. Since we are in the shadow of the World trade Center, and there are a lot of families in New Jersey who were affected by 9/11, the tribute went ahead. However, it did not go forward without a lot of squawking by these or those people who did not like the police, we’re not comfortable with a patriotic display, and so forth. Unfortunately, at this point it has become all too common to allow those who claim offense to veto any kind of celebration. That goes especially if those who claim offense are women, members of some other protected group, or just on the left politically.
I’m not surprised that Bush said what he said. Trump is down, but he’s not quite out. There are several factions within the Republican party that want him to be down and out. They do not want him running again in 2024. A lot of them would like to see him in jail. It goes without saying that the Democratic party would all like to see him down and out, in jail, or, even better, dead. So they do everything they can to smear him and make sure he will not rise again politically. I am not going to give Trump a complete pass on January 6th, because when you know the forest is bone dry you should not be careless with fire, however, I have concluded that he did not actively throw a torch into the bone drive forest in an attempt to deliberately set it aflame. I also think that the Democratic party is being completely hypocritical when they describe what happened on that day as an insurrection, while they ignore what happened the summer before, which they actively promoted. To try to tie 911 to what happened last January 6th somehow is without a basis in fact or principle, and frankly, pretty despicable. I’d be careful about implying that the 43rd president is stupid, however. Yes, he probably got into Yale as a legacy admission, because he was the son of a powerful and notable alumnus. However, to attribute all of his successes to wealth and connections is probably erroneous. There are plenty of science of wealth and connections who turn out not to be very good at whatever, and they typically end up being put in no show positions, or closely watched by handlers, or simply becoming playboys. They don’t typically get elected governors of large states nor do they become president. However, I will certainly grant you that this could have been yet another act of petty revenge by a member of a formerly powerful political family which is now on the outs, and partly on the outs because Donald Trump slammed Jeb Bush and made him look bad during a debate.
Never intended to imply Bush was unintelligent. That he used family ties in politics & business to get a start on his business & political success is just normal for ambitious people who happen to have those ties available. Bush ’43 did have decorum in being seen with Clinton even after both left office. I credit Bush ’43 highly for immediate post-9/11 actions (my kid brother was murdered in the South Tower that day), and he likely went into Iraq to finish what his Dad didn’t, so I can’t fault him there. Other than that, I’m not sure he was served well by all his advisers, whoever they were.
Carter was hated by Reagan but they appeared at events together. Clinton hated Reagan but they appeared at events together. Bush hated Clinton but they appeared at events together, Obama hated Bush but they appeared at events together. Now they all hate Trump and he is the uninvited piranha. This indicates to me that all who occupied the oval office before and after Trump were cut from the same bolt. There is not a difference between them, their politics, and their agendas. Trump was and remains the outlier who accomplished more for the American people than the others.
Piranha? You mean pariah (as in outcast), right? Not that Trump couldn’t act like a piranha (a dangerous carnivorous fish found in South America) now and then.
As the neocons and “legacy Republican” elites struggle to hold on to their dwindling piece of the pie, they consider it imperative to discredit true constitutional conservatives at every turn, and join with their Democrat counterparts to paint them as “dangerous extremists.” They are right in one respect: they are increasing the divisions that push people toward create more extreme views.
As a Californian who, on election day before any votes have been counted, is watching a vocal group of supposed conservatives declare that the Democratic Party has stolen the election, I see a pattern that extends past January 6th. For at least a generation, I’d predict, a substantial number of Republicans will never concede any election, no matter the circumstances. This is indeed dangerous and extreme. The fact that there are others, elsewhere on the political spectrum, who are also dangerous and extreme and don’t get much grief for it, should not interfere with the fundamental analysis that refusing to concede an election is not the stance of a constitutional conservative, or indeed anyone of any stripe. I’d wager that this is what Bush was referring to, more than the breaking of any windows.
I agree with you, but you’re wrong to assign this phenomenon to just one party. Al Gore refused to concede, and the Democrats continued to claim the election of 2000 was stolen. Some House Democrats refused to certify the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections. They contrived every possible excuse to claim the 2016 election was stolen—by the Electoral College, by Russia. Stacey Abrams has yet to concede in Georgia, and is celebrated for it.
But I hadn’t thought of Bush’s interest in the subject, since he was victimized by it. Good catch!
You are correct that some Democrats do it, but the scale is nowhere near the same. Bush ducked eggs on his way into the White House; supporters of Trump broke into the Capital. Gore conceded once the Supreme Court basically told him to; Trump has yet to concede, despite substantial legal losses, and I’d wager won’t concede in his lifetime. Even the scale of conspiracies is nowhere near the same–“Russian disinformation flooded the Internet and decided the election” is not true, but it’s less of a lie than “Voting machines cheated,” as Trump’s legal team well knows. To assign equal responsibility for the precarious state we’re in does not hold up to historical scrutiny.
That’s just not true, Gully. 2020 is the first election Republicans have claimed was tainted. As I said, Democarts made the claim in 2000, 2004, and 2016—the last three times they lost. Gore conceded—he had no choice—but he and Lieberman proceeded to claim they were robbed for 4 years. I don’t know where you get the “one phony reason to claim illegitimacy” is better than the other position. And the one alleged bad voting machine was hardly the mains basis for Trump’s fraud claims. Yes, he should have conceded. But there is no way to claim the challenging of election results is a GOP monopoly. If anything, Democrats have engaged in it more often.