The panic is all mine: this really had to be a productive and efficient day, and it wasn’t: life, clients and chaos all got in the way. Now I’m facing down a serious deadline and running out of time.
Nonetheless, Ethics Alarms will not be denied.
This is an unusually relevant landmark ethics date: On September 8, 1974, President Gerald Ford infuriated Richard Nixon’s many enemies and pardoned him for any crimes he may have committed or participated in while President. It was a uniquely courageous act that defined (and probably doomed) Ford’s Presidency. In my view, it was also the right and and wise thing to do. Ford, like Joe Biden, was an undistinguished career politician and hardly a towering intellect, but unlike Biden, he understood what was in the best long-term interests of the nation. Democrats made him defend this controversial action before the House Judiciary Committee, and Ford said he wanted to end the national divisions created by the Watergate scandal. To this day, there are still those who believe that he cut a corrupt deal with Nixon when he was appointed. Ford was well aware that the pardon would place his leadership under a permanent shadow. “Mister we could use a man like Gerald Ford again!”
1. Since you mention it...I was going to ignore D-list celeb Kathy Griffin’s comment yesterday that “If you don’t want a Civil War, vote for Democrats in November. If you do want Civil War, vote Republican,” mainly because, like Alyssa Milano, Bette Midler, Rob Reiner and so many others, nobody should care what Kathy Griffin says, tweets or thinks. But commenter Willem Reese wrote, “Were she a sentient creature, she might have realized that her statement was an admission that it is democrats who are prone to violence when they don’t get what they want.” I can’t let that pass. I think Griffin said what she meant, and that it was a threat. She was also correct: Democrats have proven that their current breed believes in violence as the appropriate reaction to events, elections and decisions they disagree with. I fully expect riots if the GOP takes Congress. Griffin is vile and revolting, but she’s not stupid.
2. Remember, Facts Don’t Matter! An online survey by WPA Intelligence from August 22-25, found that 22% of Democrats responding agreed with the statement, “Some men can get pregnant.” 36% of white, college-educated female Democrats concurred. This is, of course, nuts, but it is an excellent example of the unethical (as in incompetent and dishonest) phenomenon of people tailoring their beliefs to fit ideologies regardless of reality. It’s also an amusing assertion from the party that claims to be in thrall to “science.”
To be fair, online polls aren’t worth very much. But if you can get pregnant, you’re a woman. And if you think just saying you’re a man makes you a man, you’re an idiot.
3. How about just convincing the public that there is a more capable, trustworthy, patriotic and honest candidate? From the Times:
Democrats and liberal groups, determined to find a way to bar former President Donald J. Trump from returning to office, are preparing a variety of ways to disqualify him, including drafting new legislation and readying a flurry of lawsuits seeking to use an obscure clause in the Constitution to brand him an insurrectionist…Progressive activists have also been meeting with secretaries of state and sending letters to officials who oversee elections to try to persuade them to use their authority to keep anyone involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol off the ballot in 2024. Election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia have already received letters urging them to block Mr. Trump from the ballot.
Sadly, this is what the Democratic Party and its ruling progressive mob has become: a group that seeks to defeat competing adversaries through technicalities, conspiracy theories, gimmicks, abuses of power and legal machinations rather than via elections. Ironically, this conduct not only makes their opposition stronger, but gives them the moral and ethical high ground.
4. Two chess-related ethics stories in a single week! Netflix has paid pioneering chess champion Nona Gaprindashvili an undisclosed amount of damages in her defamation suit against the streaming service. The Netflix hit series “The Queen’s Gambit,” about a fictional female U.S. chess grandmaster, included a line in the final episode of the series that mentioned Gaprindashvili, the first woman to be named a grandmaster, and claimed that she had “never faced men’.”’ across a tournament chessboard. That was false, and Gaprindashvili quite properly regarded it as an counter-factual attack on her career and reputation.
[For the record, I was not enthralled with “the Queen’s Gambit,” but it gave chess a boost, and that’s a wonderful development.}
5. Here’s a poll that if it isn’t accurate, it should be:
Ethics Alarms 
#5 I don’t disagree with those polls at all but we don’t govern or make rules based on polls or Direct Democracy.
The only problem with setting an age limit is that human beings are living full productive lives at much, much older ages than they used to and that is likely to continue to increase; so where should that age limit be set and should it be “easily” adjustable based on projected life span of humans beings?
CRAZY IDEA
Since some people age a lot better than other, why not require cognitive testing by a predetermined medical professional every year, or ever other year, once they reach the age of 70 or 80?
I’d prefer a double-blind random medical professional, in line with other types of medical information gathering, since whoever has the pre-determination power… Has power.
My crazy idea – if you think someone is too old, don’t vote for them if age is important to you. This is shades of #3 – what most probably mean is there is an old governor/senator/representative in some other state/district they don’t like.
“To be fair, online polls aren’t worth very much. But if you can get pregnant, you’re a woman. And if you think just saying you’re a man makes you a man, you’re an idiot.”
This is the dems way of massaging language to advance their gender fluidity agenda and so far it appears to be working with nearly 1/3 of proglibots.
At this point mathematically, Kathy G’s accumulated 15min of fame is nearing an hour.
If unable to get publicity through talent and accomplishments, simply find new ways to be “vile and revolting.” Plus, it makes her feel like she is doing something useful while waiting for the phone to ring.
I hope this isn’t too harsh.
“it makes her feel like she is doing something useful while waiting for the phone to ring.”
Of FAR GREATER concern? Any phuquewit that’s calling.
“I hope this isn’t too harsh.”
Heh! Not at all, quite the contrary; from where The Gotch is sittin’, leastways,
The Gotch
2. I think the real takeaway from this poll (if accurate) is that only 22% of Democrats responded that way. That is really quite a small level of support, given both the unquestioned position that trans ideology currently has in standard woke dogma and the current fashion of uncritically adopting the beliefs of one’s side wholesale. If only 22% (again, if accurate) of the people who are “supposed to” believe this actually do, trans ideology is on much thinner ice politically than supporters would admit and vulnerable to the right person stating that the emperor has no clothes. Or empress, as the case may be.
“Only”? If a fifth of a party believes that the moon is made of cheese, I’d say that’s pretty damning.
The baron has a good point, though. Has there ever before been an issue with so little real support (that 22% number is certainly an overcount – more than a few people probably answered the poll the way they felt they were “supposed to”, not the way they truly feel in their bones) that still somehow strikes such abject terror of getting on the wrong side of the loudmouths that even the most powerful people and organizations are cowed into going along with the lunatics?
The Spitfire Audio incident this past week is a perfect example. After a relatively mild tweet expressing skepticism for practicing gender reassignment on children (you know, the kind of thing that virtually every human on earth agreed with from the beginning of time until ten minutes ago) the co-founder of the company was out on his ass in less than 24 hours. That’s an insane overreaction if only a small fraction of the population is on board with this nonsense.
Thanks. I phrased it poorly but that’s the point I was trying to make. Of course, Jack is right in that 22 per cent, or anything close to it, is far too many actual true believers.
My first reaction was, “Gee, I’d forgotten that.” Then I remembered: Nixon appointed Ford to take Spiro Agnew’s place. Ford appointed Rockefeller to take his own place.
Great catch, Greg.
btw, Jack said “Griffin is vile and revolting, but she’s not stupid.” Disagree, slight correction. Griffin is vile and revolting and stupid, but she’s not wrong, in this case.
Hell. How did I get that messed up? Of course, Nixon hated Rocky. I don’t know what I was thinking. Fixed.
I had a feeling you would say that. Maybe I’m just feeling optimistic today but I chose to focus on the other 78% not completely drinking the Kool Aid.
Besides, I suspect (based on nothing but a hunch) that the poll fell victim to social desirability bias and that the actual number is less than 22%, with some respondents refusing to admit what they really believe, in the same way that polls throughout 2016 consistently underestimated Trump’s support.
I’ll defend my take on Griffin. Sure she meant what she said, but it was more of a statement of the obvious than a threat. As far as I can tell, she has no ability to rally a mob and deliver on any real threat. If it weren’t for her widely noted severed head stunt (and maybe even so), you could probably add her to your recent list of names people might have heard of but can’t quite identify.
She screwed up and said the quiet part out loud; that’s not smart. I see no reason to believe she realized what she was doing. It messes with the narrative, heavily pushed by the left and reinforced by the media, that it’s those on the right who are the violent reactionary thugs. This is based almost entirely on the events of one day, Jan. 6th, and flies in the face of the evidence of years of repeated violence by the left. It’s an absurd narrative that needs careful and constant tending to maintain (congressional hearings, editorials, etc.), and she put her foot in it.
Re: No. 3; Fear of the Orange.
Following Willem’s thoughts, doesn’t this statement demonstrate that the Democrats and their central statist loving minions truly fear Trump and non-Democrat voting citizens will reject their idea of utopia?
In a functioning society, the voters should get to vote for their candidate of choice. If Trump is so repugnant then voters will reject him and his orangy ways. Right? But, the Left is terrified that Deplorables will throw off the Left’s chains of leftism and its tyrannical ways.
jvb
Age Limits- Not only should there be age limits, but there should also be term limits. This prevents kingdom building. Not only should there be term limits there should be limits on the financial gain from office holding An office holder’s net worth at the time he leaves office should not increase more than the meager COLA allowances allowed to veterans, social security recipients, and other employees over the net worth when they entered office. I find it ludicrous that for 20 years the Biden’s reported AGI averaged about $300,000. The year he left the vice president’s office his AGI was over $11,000.000. Obama’s net worth when he entered office was reported to be $4-500,000. {rinciaplly for the work Michelle. When they left the Presidential residence their network is in the tens of millions, owning three mansion size houses in the most expensive suburbs of America. Ironically, both the Bidens and Obama’s wailed against the 1%. Now they all are part of the 0.1%
Show me a man who is pregnant and I will show you a woman who did not completely transition to manhood. Show me a woman who impregnated a woman and I will show you a man who did not completely transition to womanhood.
I want to know who those people who think a biological male can (1) ovulate, (2) get pregnant, (3) carry a fetus/baby to term, (4) deliver a baby, and (5) probably nurse that child/baby. And they say Democrats are the party of science? For the love of Pete.*
jvb
*Ed. Note: Who is Pete, anyway?
Me! Me! I know! “Pete” is another of many non-blasphemous codes for “God” or “Jesus,” like “Jeez,” “Cripes,” “Crikey!” “By Crackee,” “Jumpin’ Jehosaphat!”and my personal favorite, “The Simpsons'” “Jebus.”
Whew! That question has nagged me for decades. Thanks for clarifying!
jvb