Ethics Pain-Killer, 3/14/2022

I’m not mentioning this for sympathy, just full disclosure: a longtime problem tooth went bonkers last night, and I’ve been in agony ever since. Nothing works, I can’t sleep, and I am over-dosed with multiple drugs to no avail. So I’m not sure how this post is going to come out, though the tooth will, as soon as my dentist can clear his schedule. My dental woes are just one more little bonus from the lock-down. On the plus side, if all my teeth fall out, those masks will be a godsend...

1. “The View” does have its uses, I have to admit. The shrill spontaneous utterances of that collection of one-note partisans are revealing. For example, Ana Navarro, the fake Republican pundit favored by CNN because her predictable attacks on President Trump were treated as balance with the rest of CNN’s attacks on him, had this to say in rebuke of guest and minor Trump staffer Stephanie Griffin, who is now trying to get gigs by saying that she left the administration because she she “saw things” she “hated”:

“Four years later? After ‘there were good people on both sides,’ after the way he treated immigrants, after what he said about Mexicans, after hearing the sexual assault boasts on tape, after seeing him make fun of a disabled reporter? You need four years?”

Let’s see: a reference to one deceptive and debunked false narrative, three incidents before Trump was elected, and “the way he treated immigrants,” by which we can only assume she meant “Illegal immigrants,” and is therefore being dishonest,with “how he treated” standing in for “insisting that they don’t get away with breaking the law,” which is what we call “civilization.” That’s the core of the entire anti-Trump rage phenomenon: not substance, style and rhetoric. The first things that Navarro could think of had nothing to do with Trump’s policies or success in office. Thanks, Ana. Just as I thought.

2. At least she lies to Democrats too…Speaker Pelosi, speaking at the 2022 House Democratic Issues Conference, last week, channeled the Biden administration’s new “messaging” blaming Putin’s invasion for rising gas prices and inflation that began a year earlier, then said,

“Seventeen Nobel laureates in economics said that… that legislation [Build Back Better]does not increase inflation. It is non-inflationary because of the way it is written. So when we’re having this discussion, it’s important to dispel some of those who say, well, ‘Is the government spending’ — no, it isn’t. The government spending is doing the exact reverse, reducing the national debt. It is not inflationary.”

Even giving Pelosi the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she meant the deficit, not the debt, her assertion that the trillion dollar plus bill would save money is ludicrous. Despite “how it is written,” the Congressional Budget Office determined, in fact, that Biden’s languishing bill would add $367 billion to the national deficit over the next decade. Is it possible that Democrats believe their own lies?

3. Do these delicate female athletes realize they are setting back the progress of women’s equality by decades with this kind of self-indulgence? Naomi Osaka, the former No. 1 tennis star who started her fall to #78 on the pro tour by announcing that it was too stressful to have to answer post-match questions from reporters, broke down in tears at the BNP Paribas Open because a single unmannerly fan shouted, “Naomi, you suck!” First she demanded that the spectator be ejected, then wanted to take a mic and address the crowd mid-match. After she lost, Osaka again skipped her post-match news conference.

A male pro-athlete who had break-down over a single heckler in an overwhelmingly supportive crowd of spectators would be universally ridiculed, and deservedly so.

4. Ugh. I’ve got three more items, but I just can’t think straight. Waiting for some drugs…sorry!

10 thoughts on “Ethics Pain-Killer, 3/14/2022

  1. #2) An honest economist would say they can’t predict the outcome. Economists like to pretend it’s a “science” when it’s really educated guessing. How many of the “Nobel laureates” claimed the economy would tank under a Trump presidency? Show us their track records.

  2. #2 I nearly did a spit-take when I hear Speaker Pelosi declare that President Biden’s legislation would reduce the national debt; I’m not sure that she misspoke. Biden has said debt in the same context, as has Harris. Repeatedly.

  3. #2 Typical 21st century progressive politician gaslighting everyone she talks to in order to build and push forward their false propaganda narrative. Pelosi has shown us that she’s an accomplished liar.

    The political left has shown it’s pattern of propaganda lies in their narratives so many times over the last 6+ years that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively pushes?

  4. “Let’s see: a reference to one deceptive and debunked false narrative, three incidents before Trump was elected, and “the way he treated immigrants,” by which we can only assume she meant “Illegal immigrants,” and is therefore being dishonest,with “how he treated” standing in for “insisting that they don’t get away with breaking the law,” which is what we call “civilization.””

    It seems odd for an ethicist to not acknowledge that there are ethical and unethical ways to treat lawbreakers. Navarro, like most Americans, thought that the family separation policy (among others) was an unethical way to treat lawbreakers. I do too. Do you? I can’t see an argument for it that doesn’t devolve into “the ends justify the means,” but perhaps you’ll surprise me.

    But of course, it’s not at all accurate to suggest that Trump only treated “illegal” immigrants badly. His infamous “When Mexico sends it people” speech does not once use the term “illegal immigrants,” and the phrasing there makes more sense if he was talking about legal ones. His first major executive order banned immigration that had up to that point been perfectly legal; he tried to end chain migration, which is legal and affects mostly legal immigrants; he told legal immigrants who disagreed with him publicly to go back to their own countries; he closed ports of entry for legal asylum seekers; he attacked the Diversity Visa Lottery system and tampered with it in a way that was overruled by a court; he attacked birthright citizenship, which is not only legal, but specified in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution; and he threatened to close the U.S. border. This is just a partial list, but overall, Trump was far more successful at reducing legal immigration than he was at reducing illegal immigration:

    To claim that Trump merely opposed illegal immigration but was perfectly fine with legal immigration is a huge distortion of his record on both rhetoric and policy.

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 )

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.