Biden called for an “immediate ceasefire” yesterday in a phone call with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, telling him that “strikes on humanitarian workers” and “the overall humanitarian situation” are “unacceptable.” Biden also, we are told, “U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel’s immediate action” and on steps to “address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers.”
By pure accident, the first thing I saw was Pentagon spokesman John Kirby (he’s the smart and competent one of the two primary White House paid liars) gaslight the press when asked how the U.S. policy toward the support of Israel in the war could be “unwavering” (as described by officials) and yet the Administration is also saying that it is considering changing that policy in light of the civilian casualties in Gaza. Kirby, with a straight face. said that the two statements were not inconsistent, prompting incredulity from his questioner. Of course they are inconsistent; in fact, they are contradictory. This is one more example of Democrats deliberately playing to the ignorant and uncritical voter.
Life competence lesson learned:Always bring your cell phone.
Resisting “progress” on principle is a self-defeating and futile exercise, not to mention stupid. I find the cultural influences of smart phones particularly, cell phones generally, toxic, deplorable and obvious, as I have noted periodically here before. Thus I only use the thing when I have to, eschewing doing business on it, keeping my email account off of it, and restricting its use to online research and actual phone calls and texts. (I have never used the camera). The remote guidance system has been useful several times too, and would have saved me an ordeal last night. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t take my phone to a performance by the Georgetown Gilbert and Sullivan Society, still producing shows after 51 years (which is how long ago I founded the group as a defiant first year law student), because I detest hearing phones sound during theatrical performances, especially mine.
Everything was going swimmingly by the end of the evening: the oroduction of the musical “Cinderella,” was really good, the student talent was exhilerating, boding well for the group’s future, the audience was large and enthusiastic, and it was nice to have positive thoughts about the Law Center for a change. Then, a bit fatigued at 11:15 pm, I took the wrong exit on the way home (on a route I have navigated literally hundreds of times without incident) and ended up completely lost in the bowels of D.C.
Trust me, you don’t want to be in the bowels of D.C.
Even using the Capitol as a visual guide, it took me 45 extra minutes to find my way home, by which time I was furious at myself, hoarse from screaming epithets at the stop lights ( must have hit 20 of them), and worried about Spuds, who had already been traumatized by Grace’s disappearance and who had never been alone so long since we adopted him.
No, I do not have a good sense of direction (an understatement), and I have never been able to see street signs clearly at night. Obviously my phone’s GPS would have saved me time and terror.
I’m a moron.
Now please start discussing ethics while I continue to flagellate myself…
Branding all critics and opponents racists has been a standard progressive and Democratic Party ploy for a long time, though it shifted into high gear when that was the primary argument used to deflect legitimate observations that Barack Obama was poor POTUS with a great PR machine. Then it shifted into higher gear as the “Get Trump!” effort became an ongoing crusade. Trump didn’t oppose letting illegals cross the border with impunity because it was, you know, insane policy for any nation; his opposition was based in racism. The tactic is dishonest, unfair, divisive, despicable and indefensible, but as the late Harry Reid—forwarding address: Hell—explained cheerily as he defended the Big Lie he circulated about Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign, it works.
I am now noticing that the Race Card has been designated as the Axis’s official counter to the looming GOP recycling of Ronald Reagan’s effective question during the 1980 campaign: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” By almost every objective measure, as with Jimmy Carter’s failed Presidency, the unavoidable answer today is “Are you kidding? NO!” It’s a powerful weapon. So the Axis has declared it to be racist.
Commenter Dr. Emilio Lizardo revealed this morning in the comments to “At Princeton, Students Feel “Unsafe” in the Company of a Conservative Professor” that the policy at issue had already been reversed by the time I wrote about it:
“By April 2, the policy was reversed after an intervention from the club’s Graduate Board. In the seven days in between, debate over the policy rose from the club’s private GroupMe to the headlines of national right-wing publications. Club leadership maintains that the reversal was not due to national media scrutiny.”
So Ethics Alarms can’t claim even a smidgen of credit for the reversal. Nonetheless, the lesson here, as we have already seen elsewhere, is that when organizations and institutions install discriminatory and self-evidently unethical procedures and policies in the name of wokeness, political correctness, aspiring fascism of the far left, DEI or other perversions of core American principles and are quickly exposed, assailed and embarrassed, they usually back down. (Usually.)
A further lesson is that the organizations and institutions know that what they are doing is indefensible except from the “by any means necessary” perspective driving the Left in its crusade to re-make America. They know it, but they try anyway, hoping that any single instance will fly under the metaphorical radar long enough to become institutionalized. When they get caught, their reaction is, “OK, too soon. We’ll hold off on this one for now.”
Their assumption, and it is, frighteningly, probably correct, that the current DEI, Black Lives Matter, open borders, climate change hysteria, anti-free speech…freedom of association…equal treatment under the law and due process wack-a-mole contest it has forced our society into playing will inevitably result in a slow, steady ratcheting-up of anti-democratic practices that become accepted as norms. This is how the public education system became an indoctrination process. It is how the initially admirable goals of affirmative action became the racist practice of “diversity, equity and inclusion.” It is how journalism in the US. became partisan propaganda.
The fact that only conservative publications and news sources treated the Princeton story as “fit to print” and necessary illumination to stop democracy from “dying in darkness” is also significant. This doesn’t mean that the story wasn’t important or objectively worth reporting on. The conduct of the mainstream media in ignoring it proves that its purpose is not to keep the public informed, but to assist the Far Left in laying waste to America’s traditional interpretation of democracy. The Princeton story is important, and the fact that only conservative sources publicized it (only Fox News among the news networks picked it up) doesn’t prove their bias. It proves the sinister, deliberate complicity of the mainstream media as it attempts to keep Americans from realizing what is going on right under their noses until it is too late.
The Princetonian wrote that a debate over the policy arose only after “headlines of national right-wing publications” exposed it. If the story sparked a debate, it means it was a story worth reporting. The MSM didn’t report on the story because the Far Left doesn’t want any debate. In an honest debate they lose, just as they lose on abortion, illegal immigration, and so many other issues. If they felt they could win on the merits, then they would want debate. Instead, their media tries to bury the facts. This isn’t a conservative “conspiracy theory.” It is reality.
Finally, the club’s claim that “the reversal was not due to national media scrutiny” is another damning piece of evidence. Gaslighting, denial, “Jumbo”-ism and “It isn’t what it is” (Yoo’s Rationalization,” #64) mania have become such reflex tools of the Left that comparisons with “1984” are unavoidable. The border is secure. Bidenomics is a success. Inflation isn’t a problem. The President didn’t extol the “Transgender Day of Visibility” on Easter. He’s as sharp as a tack. The Trump prosecutions aren’t political. January 6 was an insurrection. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
The Princeton student club episode is an important one for American to understand. They can only understand it if they know about it.
Boy I wish I knew how to get the readership here back on the rising curve it seemed to be on in 2016...
I only got two posts up yesterday. That’s not acceptable, and I’m sorry. Ethics Alarms has a goal of registering four posts a day, come rain or shine, because even that level—it’s typically about 3,500 or more words a day, counting typos—doesn’t keep up. I don’t feel too badly when I can only manage three. Yesterday was a terrible day, beginning with the ordeal of having to deal with liars, incompetents and SOBs along with malicious technology as I tried to get an overdue waste water treatment bill handled. By the time what should have been a 15 minute process was over, it was after noon, Spuds was annoyed (I almost wrote “ticked” which has other meanings when a dog is the subject) and I was so furious and frustrated that I could hardly function.
For the second time today, I nearly duplicated a post I had already written. Princeton hasn’t been in the “Great Stupid” news lately as much as its Ivy League competitors, so my first headline was almost identical to this one from three years ago. Cornell, as we now know, has lost its collective mind. Columbia has been beyond redemption for a while now. The University of Pennsylvania’s president said essentially the same stuff before the Senate about whether anti-Semitsim on campus was acceptable depending on “context” as Harvard’s president, and was fired before Claudine Gay was. Yale, you will recall, has so disgraced itself that some judges announced last year that they will no longer accept clerks from Yale’s law school. (I don’t know what’s wrong with Dartmouth: apparently they just study and drink up there in the New Hampshire boondocks.)
Princeton, however, is apparently graduating complete weenies, a true embarrassment for a school whose mascot is a tiger. Princeton student Matthew Wilson revealed in an op-ed published in The Daily Princetonian, that after he brought a professor as a guest to lunch at one of Princeton’s social clubs, the club changed its visitors rule. Now, any student guests who aren’t relatives or friends will “henceforth not be permitted to enter the club during its ‘hours of food service operations’ without prior approval from undergraduate officers, club staff, and the alumni Board of Governors.”
Why the change, you may ask, as Wilson did. The policy was changed because the presence of the prof, who is one of Princeton’s lone conservatives, “made members feel unsafe.” Wait, is the professor rabid, a known serial killer, infected with ebola or prone to attack strangers? No, it’s just that his beliefs make the students feel unsafe. At an institution that once was dediacted to exposing young minds to a whole range of ideas and theories.
I confess, though this is not the first time I have encountered the fatuous “safe spaces” argument, I don’t understand it at all. This is not what “safe” means. Nobody is harmed or endangered by hearing opinions one disagrees with, so one can’t possibly be threatened by someone who is merely in the same room who isn’t saying anything directed you at all.
“The simple fact that they had to eat lunch in the same building as him — a respected professor at this university who many Charter students have taken classes with and even praised — was too much to handle,” Wilson wrote. “It was a grave error for [the club’s] leadership to bend to the demands of a few students who couldn’t stomach the possibility of being within shouting distance of someone whose views challenge their own,” Wilson continued.
Why should he, or anyone, even have to write this?
[As Curmie was kind enough to remind me in the comments below, I wrote about this same poll when it was first reported in January. Then, however, I couldn’t find the actual poll results themselves, and that post mostly focused on that problem. I like this post better anyway…]
Well, polls. Still, Scott Rasmussen yesterday used a podcast appearance to call attention to the results of a provocative poll he took earlier this year, and they are, in one aspect, heartening to your friendly neighborhood ethicist (though I don’t believe them). What he called “terrifying” was another set of results.
What caused me to click was this: To the question “Would you rather have your candidate win by cheating or lose by playing fair?” just 7% of American polled said they would prefer their candidate to win by cheating, if that’s what it took. Rasmussen says that he wished the number was lower , but that it “isn’t bad.” Not bad? I think the number is astounding, and that it’s obvious that people were lying. A vast majority of American students, adults, workers and management cheats in myriad ways to achieve goals far less important than electing national leaders. More people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump in 2016 despite undeniable evidence that the Democratic Party and Clinton had cheated to get her the nomination. Her then still popular hubby had even cheated on her, and she still went on the Today Show to cheat the public by blaming the Monica Lewinsky scandal on a conservative conspiracy when she knew the ugly story was true. 7%? Utter nonsense, whatever the reason.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) tried to speak at the University of Maryland at the end of last month on the topic of “Democracy, Autocracy and the Threat to Reason in the 21st Century.” He was not permitted to get into the text of his speech, however. Raskin is one of the foolish Hamas-enabling, having-their-cake-and-eating-it-too Democrats who wants to make Israel stop its existentially necessary war effort to end the “violence and pervasive suffering in Gaza” and “provide for a massive surge in humanitarian aid”—to the region the U.S. is supposedly supporting the Israeli attacks on. Brilliant!…but I digress.
“Progress in history requires not just reasoning, which is certainly necessary, but it’s not sufficient, because it also requires the addition of the pro-social emotions, as the psychologists call it, of solidarity, empathy, love and the political virtues of justice and equality and freedom,” Raskin began. Then pro-Palestine protesters began shouting at Raskin, accusing him of being “complicit in genocide.” You know: morons. Student morons.
The progressive congressman pleaded with the pro-Hamas mob to have a dialogue with him rather than “heckling,” and that tactic worked as well as it always does. Raskin stopped his speech, pivoting to a spontaneous question and answer format, but the protesters’ chants and jeers made that approach impossible too.
University of Maryland President Darryll Pines (seen grinning above) stepped in and declared the event over as Raskin was effectively silenced. Pines then issued a disgraceful statement to the media, representing the shouting down of a member of Congress as a good thing, either because he was terrified of criticizing the far left on his campus, or because he’s an unethical fool. I suspect the latter.
This is a terrible story, but from an ethical enlightenment and focus perspective, I am grateful for it.
A four months pregnant patient at a Prague’s Bulovka University Hospital received an unwanted abortion procedure when doctors got her confused with another woman. (Both patients were not native Czech speakers.) The woman who lost her baby was at the hospital for a routine check-up, but nurses, doctors, a gynecologist and an anesthesiologist all became convinced she was another patient seeking an abortion. They subjected their victim to a surgical cleaning of the uterus without her consent consent or knowledge. She miscarried following the procedure.
Prague police are treating the matter as a case of negligent “bodily harm.” Is that what it is? A woman losing her unborn child is the equivalent of her losing a kidney? Is the unwanted invasion of her body is the issue here, and not the death of whatever that thing is that their outrageous mistake killed?
One of the clearest pieces of evidence that the entire pro-abortion case is built on intellectual dishonesty is the weird and mystical convention that if a mother wants her unborn child to be regarded as a nascent human being, it is in the eyes of the law, in most states. Someone ripping the unborn baby out of the womb of its mother will be usually charged with a crime against two human beings, not one. But if a woman has been taught to regard a gestating fetus as a wart, a tumor or a “mass of cells,” killing it is no crime at all…just a “choice,” or “reproductive care.”
I want to read or hear an abortion activist, or anyone screaming about how the Supreme Court removed a woman’s “right” to control her own body when her body includes a genetically distinct human being, explain how the law should treat a situation like the atrocity in the Czech Republic. Was a child involved or not? Were two human beings harmed, or one?
Were the doctors and the hospital guilty of a negligent tort, as if they had amputated the wrong leg, or was this negligent homicide?
Scotland’s has passed a bonkers hate crime law that went into effect this week. It makes it a crime potentially punishable by up to seven years in prison to “stir up hatred” regarding age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and “variations in sex characteristics.” The law would be such a flagrant violation of the First Amendment in the U.S. that even Democrats would be embarrassed to vote for it, but Scotland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, has been hit particularly hard by The Great Stupid. (This would be a propitious time to say a silent but heartfelt “Thanks, guys!” to Tom, Ben, George, John and the rest of the much maligned Founders.)
Being is an especially good position to do so, J.K. Rowling, the “Harry Potter” author, has decided to lead the principled opposition to the unethical law. Yesterday, as the crime of “stirring up hatred” went into force, Rowling publicly defied it by listing a convicted rapist, several ex abusers and trans activists in a post on Twitter/”X,” asserting that they were all, in her view, men.
Ethics Alarms 