As always, you get to decide what ethics matters to raise, analyze and discuss. I am hoping someone delves into the many ethics implications, abstract, direct and otherwise of the now-ended reign of Queen Elizabeth II, especially since I have less than my usual control over my schedule today, and am unlikely to be able to examine this myself.
It’s been a bit of a dead week here traffic-wise, as the week after Labor Day usually is, and yet we have seen some superb comments and debates on many topics.
Keep up the good work!
Ethics Alarms 
I view Queen Elizabeth as an ethics hero. She gave her whole life to what she saw as her duty to her people. It is very likely that the sad episode of her uncle abdicating the throne was a deep influence on her life-long dedication.
Not all do.
And, some are just assholes: https://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2022/09/08/carnegie-mellon-university-professor-tweet-about-queen-elizabeth-ii-goes-viral-uju-anya/stories/202209080145
-Jut
Ethics Dunce: The State of Illinois
(Maybe this has already been covered.)
Beginning January 1, 2023, the State of Illinois lists the following as non-detainable offenses:
– Aggravated Battery
– Aggravated DUI
– Aggravated Fleeing
– Arson
– Burglary
– Drug-induced Homicide
– Intimidation
– Kidnapping
– Robbery
– 2nd-degree murder
– Threatening a public official
Once charged with the crime and the court date set, the defendants will all be released without bail or bond.
So, if I walk down the street swinging a bat like a helicopter knowing that I’ll crack someone in the head, but not anyone specifically, I’ll get released the same day, unless the prosecutor decides I’m a threat and decides to overcharge me with 1st degree murder.
Well, let’s load up on drugs first and blame my erratic bat-swinging on drugs, then I’ll either be on 2nd-degree or drug-induced homicide.
Unbelievable.
That solves the “over-incarceration” problem, ¿no? If you redefine criminal conduct, then you don’t have spikes in crime. Nicely done, Illinois.
jvb
What’s the difference between Queen Elizabeth and the State of Illinois?
Queen Elizabeth never abdicated.
The difference between California and the Titanic?
The Titanic went down with the lights on.
Awesome.
You wanna bet that immediate vigilante justice will follow the planned collapse of the justice system by the “progressive” lunatics.
Well, since the doctor put me out ill until Monday due to a nasty throat infection that made it next to impossible to eat or speak for two days (azithromycin – one more modern miracle), I guess I will try my hand.
Elizabeth II wasn’t born to be queen. She was the elder daughter of Albert, the Duke of York, second son of the formidable (although no brain-trust) George V, who led the United Kingdom through the Great War and the beginning of the end of empire. His eldest son, known as “David” among his friends, but whose name has gone down in history rarely as Edward VIII, more often as the Duke of Windsor, almost always as the Edward of “Edward and Mrs. Simpson” and without exception as a failure (sometimes even as a potential traitor) lasted no more than a year before he let an unprincipled whore pull him down from his throne and into the shadow of disapproval. Hearing the announcement, the precocious princess, barely 10 years old, remarked to her younger sister Margaret that “Papa is to be king.” Supposedly Margaret said something to the effect of “then you’ll be queen? Poor you.”
C.S. Lewis said once that it’s the princes that have all the fun. He was partly right, although whether that fun actually does some good or is mere self-pleasing is another story. Elizabeth’s father could not have come to the throne at a worse time for him, but also not at a better time for the rest of the world as two years into his reign Hitler moved on Poland and the UK and France moved on Hitler… a day late and a dollar short.
Many wanted her and her mom and sister evacuated to Canada, but, to their credit, they stayed on to look their own people in the eye during the darkest days any free nation has ever seen. Now, much has been made of the fact that Elizabeth was in fact a member of the military during WW2. The full truth is that she was, but only from February 1945 on (although the war still wasn’t a sure thing yet), after she became 18 and decided to personally contribute to the war effort. She had the honorary rank of second subaltern (basically 2Lt) but did later get promoted one step to junior commander on her own merits. She learned to read maps, drive large trucks, and repair diesel engines. This was not something the privileged sought to avoid in the wartime UK, even Churchill’s daughter served, but it did give her a valuable view of life for non-royals. She did sleep at Windsor Castle though, rather than at the camp where her unit was based, for security reasons as much as comfort (never mind cloak and dagger stuff, it only takes one idiot fellow junior officer looking for 15 minutes of fame to do something stupid with major unintended consequences).
With the end of the war (on V-E Day she and her sister mingled with the London crowds, a happy, but very foolish thing to do), she took her place as a working royal alongside her parents. In 1947, during a tour of southern Africa, she delivered the speech which included the promise, “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.” The speech had been written by one-time journalist Dermot Morrah, so I’m sure she delivered it as she would have any other prepared speech, but one is left to wonder if she really grasped what she was getting herself into.
In the 1930s she had met then-Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. She found herself falling in love with him in about 1939, and the two courted mostly by letters, since, as a serving naval officer, Philip was, ah, otherwise engaged until 1945. Truth be told, her family was iffy about the match, Philip was a prince without a kingdom (both Denmark and Greece having been conquered by the Nazis and left in ashes), and his family included some Nazi-connected in-laws. Nonetheless, their engagement was announced in 1947 and they were married November of that year. Philip gave up his Greek and Danish titles, left active service with the Royal Navy (which he had hoped to command one day) and converted to Anglicanism from Greek Orthodoxy. Essentially, he gave up his whole world to be part of Elizabeth’s. Much has been made of his sometimes blunt and less than politically correct manner of speech, but he would spend the next 70 years by and away from Elizabeth, doing endless speeches, events, parades, ribbon cuttings, and who knows what else, as a living symbol of empire and commonwealth, until he bowed out of public duties in 2017 and died four years later.
To describe her life from there to the end would be to describe the history of the UK. She had already been a witness to the Berlin Airlift, the partition of India, the formation of NATO, and the Korean War, so she knew going in that there was no unlimited future of peace nor return to the dreamy green southern countryside of the Edwardian era at hand. The Suez crisis, the withdrawal from east of Suez, the Cold War, the Falklands Crisis, Operation Banner, the Troubles, the Good Friday Agreement, the near- secession of Scotland, the War on Terror, Brexit, all happened on her watch. Throughout, she studiously avoided taking political positions, serving instead as a living symbol that the country could rally around irrespective of party or perspective. This is a useful thing in time of war or national crisis, and not the easiest or safest thing to do. At least three attempts were made on Her Majesty’s life, although the latest rumor of that, in 2014, I believe, was just that, a rumor. None succeeded, but it can’t be too easy lying down to sleep each evening knowing there are some people out there who want you dead simply because of who you are and what you stand for and rising wondering if today will be the day your luck runs out. or one critical error or omission gets made.
I think what often gets lost on people used to seeing this rock-steady, gray-haired monarch in her colorful suits or dark overcoat is that she was just 25 years old and a mom of two (Andrew and Edward would come later) when she had to assume the throne. It was not supposed to happen that way. George VI was only 56 years old when he died in 1952 of a coronary thrombosis, although the fact that he also had such advanced lung cancer that it resulted in his left lung being removed certainly didn’t help (that’ll teach you not to smoke). In the best of all possible worlds she would have been looking at at least another decade of time as Crown Princess (she was never Princess of Wales since the Principality of Wales only goes to the sovereign’s eldest son) to raise her children and learn her role. Unfortunately, the stress of WW2 and the fact that her dad didn’t take very good care of himself denied her that. She would just have to learn on the job. This she did admirably, and almost always was there with the right thing to say to boost her nation along when it needed it.
I can’t say as much for her abilities as a parent, or maybe I can. Her children all did achieve great things, although I have to say I’m unimpressed with Prince Edward washing out of Royal Marines training, since other members of the family have served successfully. That said, just pushing for that kind of success is only half the equation. Although she and Philip clearly knew how to conduct themselves in a model marriage, somehow it appears that they were unable to pass that model on to their children. Prince Edward and Princess Sophie are the only couple in the next generation who have made and maintained a stable first and only marriage. Then again, they married for love, not for show nor with needing anyone’s approval. I “get” that with royalty marrying the rules are different, heck, before George V the royal family was only allowed to marry foreign royalty, (Edward VII’s wife, Alexandra, was a princess of Denmark), but I have to say, given that her own marriage was against the odds and met with some disapproval, I wonder if, in supposedly much more enlightened 1981, she could not have found it in her wisdom to allow Charles some leeway and grace in choosing his own partner, rather than enclosing his choices to lead him to Diana, who was not a good match for him and who he really never loved. That said, she did wisely not get in his way when he married Camilla in 2005. Still, I think a lot of heartbreak and scandal could have been avoided earlier with a bit more leeway. Not sure what she could have done with Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, because their marriage ran into trouble due to him being away from home so much with the Royal Navy. Andrew was her favorite, but eventually even she couldn’t turn a blind eye to his indiscretions, and, acting as queen rather than mom, effectively banished him from royal life. I also applaud her for standing up to Meghan Markle’s attempts to usurp the spotlight and elbow her way around the Royal Family the way she elbowed her way around Hollywood. The Royal Family’s role is to be nonpartisan heads and symbols of state, not to be a platform for one woman to launch her brand of wokeness on the world.
Still, she was also astute enough not to refuse royal assent to things like same-sex marriage (proposed, ironically, by the Conservatives), which would have been a major problem. Her motto was never to explain and never to complain, which well encapsulates the UK “stiff upper lip” mentality, useful when dealing with a crisis or a reverse. Of course, she had the luxury of not having to explain anything to anyone. Most of us don’t have that luxury.
Overall, she was a good and faithful sovereign who spent her entire life serving her people. I think the fact that she welcomed incoming Prime Minister Liz Truss 48 HOURS before she died, give or take, is proof positive that, whether or not she really understood what she was promising in Africa in 1947, she eventually came to understand and fulfill that promise as few other people have filled any. For that, as well as for many other reasons, I believe she should be designated a lifetime Ethics Hero.
Oh, and to that American professor who tweeted that she hoped her death was excruciating? 1. Be careful what you wish on others, it has a funny way of coming back on your own head, 2. Better to go down in history as a long-serving ruler of an empire that was of its time and didn’t always get everything right than as a self-righteous asshole who no one will remember except for that one act that made her a self-righteous asshole.
A++, Mr. O. Thank you. Did you have that in the ready? Tremendous. Best commentary I’ve seen. By far.
Do you have a job? Or prepared comments on Western leadership? Nice job, but really, did you put quotation marks around the stuff you copied? Otherwise, good for you that you have two extra hours in every day to make your comments.
Haha, I just was home sick (actually no longer so sick) today so I had time to write this.
Can anyone explain this story to me?
https://news.yahoo.com/local-batmobile-builder-faces-criminal-004800318.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABkyuWgKg2ZG_3YbgtJBO0adzg1i8yeubCk5ZXx_zUcfpq9f-4HWGh2JGprPCCjItZPotZR0dbmcRuP06dp1fKvI23EznoR2mc2CCHyHA2HP0Hz8JMGi89agLxPL4UvIOFp-Uu__S0jWwzipKbC1098m5sbPjYVxGUsUF7cWRz7z
How do four sheriffs from CA arrest a guy in Indiana after a judge in IN and in CA denied the suit?
Looks like the California DA has some questions, too.
https://www.pharostribune.com/news/article_9b7767b0-1e81-11ed-9d3e-57473b3a4cec.html
The purchaser is an asshole and has a friend in a California Sheriff, who is also an asshole (and/or corrupt) willing to abuse his authority. Since when does a civil matter involve a raid and arrest of the defendant? It seems that the District Attorneys’ decision to decline prosecution ended with an arrest.
As a Californian, I’m proud to see my taxes aren’t being wasted.
Well, since it’s Friday, I guess it is also time for your Pujols watch update.
Albert hit another one this week, bringing him to 695 for his career and only one short of he who must not be named here.
He is also closing in on some other players in different categories — perhaps you’ve heard of some of them.
Sac flies – 4th and one back of Robin Yount.
At bats – 6th and 84 back of Ty Cobb (I don’t think he’ll make this one).
Runs – 11th and 22 back of Derek Jeter.
Multi-hit games – 10th and 10 back of Tony Gwynn.
Some of those are a stretch, but he’s had a great career.
I’m rooting for him, if only so he doesn’t have to come back and stagger to 700 next season, in the manner of Pete Rose and Early Wynn.
I believe he has said he is retiring after this year, whether he gets to 700 or not. Hopefully he will either stick to that, or not need to put it to the test.
I’m rooting for him also (obviously), but it’s certainly not a given.
Oh, and speaking of home runs, I understand Judge is on pace for 64, which would be an American League record. I hate the Yankees, but I can get behind that.
Not to diminish Elizabeth II in any way, but I do think her father, George VI, deserves more credit than he is being given in today’s news and ‘analysis’ of her death. Longevity does not automatically presuppose greatness.
To be blunt and think what what you will about the British desire to maintain a hopelessly powerless monarchy (is it the choice of uniqueness and oddness that also supports, for example, their insistence that they drive on the left?), Elizabeth’s father, George VI, worked with Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt to keep the Nazi Third Reich out of Britain, and ultimately to ‘de-Nazify’ the whole of Europe — to the end that that particularly form of cruel totalitarianism did not take hold.
What the world would have been like today, if a separate peace had been achieved by England and Germany, is horrifying to contemplate.
Elizabeth II’s father died young, in my opinion killed (‘untimely young’) by the stresses of this conflict. Elizabeth inherited a world at a kind of peace, and she had nothing at all to do with it. Her cordial relationships to maintain the British Commonwealth are worth noting, but never did she face the ultimate challenge, which her father did face with courage, honor and canny. He died young, but is a real hero.
As I understand it, he initially was quite skeptical of Churchill, perhaps even hostile (as were several of Churchill’s ministers), but came to work quite closely with Churchill in the end.
Driving on the left makes a lot of sense for right handed drivers of smaller horse-drawn carts etc. on narrow, twisty roads by allowing them to shoot highwaymen more easily, just as driving on the right makes a lot of sense for right handed drivers of large wagons with an offset seat for drivers of large teams, such as long hauls needed. Result: the former won out in most of the Old World* (until Napoleon imposed his own dictum, presumably for the convenience of his armies) and the latter won out in much of the Old World.
* Check out how late European countries not dominated by Napoleon switched, which they did for compatibility reasons**. And my mother told me that, when she was with the occupation forces in Italy, she found that it was still a local option determined by the local authority (clearly Mussolini never made the roads run on time). And, indeed, that local option does somewhat hold in London, in that cars entering and leaving the Savoy Hotel do drive on the right.
** Some have suggested that Eire will switch progressively, with cars with even licence plate numbers switching on a different date to cars with odd licence plate numbers.
I had the honor to be in the presence of HRM Elizabeth II while serving as a young officer stationed at SHAPE. She came to visit the British troops! Dignity and decorum were defined by her presence, posture, and poise!