But I won’t.
Ivanka Trump, Donald’s eldest daughter, asks on Twitter/X: “What comes to mind when you see this team?”
You’ll be sorry you asked, IT, at least that you asked me.
Author: Jack Marshall
What Does THIS Poll Tell You?
Often astute by quirky ex-law prof/blogger Ann Althouse presented readers with a poll this morning asking who she should vote for and whom they thought she would vote for. Althouse is a denizen of Madison, Wisconsin, and believed to be a moderate liberal who typically votes for Democrats. A long-time blogger whose readers are swelled by the ranks of former students, she has somehow accumulated a group of mostly conservative commenters. They also tend to be knowledgeable, analytical and articulate
The results of the poll are overwhelming enough to suggest some accuracy, at least in regard to the group polled. 79% said that Althouse “should vote for Trump.” Only 4% voted that Ann should vote for Harris. The rest opined that she will vote for no one.
What’s going on here?
Name Ethics: Well, the British Government Bureaucrats Are Still Worse Than Ours…
…I guess that’s encouraging in a faint-praise sort of way.
Seven-year-old Loki Skywalker Mowbray, pictured above, was recently denied a passport to accompany his parents on a family vacation to the Dominican Republic because the British Home Office, which is in charge of the nation’s immigration, security, and law and order, claimed it couldn’t print “Skywalker” on the document because of Disney’s copyright on the name. Some idiot told the shocked parents they either had to change the child’s name or get permission from Disney to use “Skywalker”—and we all know how reasonable Disney is about such things.
After an initial scare, non-morons in the Home Office prevailed eventually. The vacation wasn’t wrecked, and the child got to keep his name (Now watch Disney try to sue the parents.)
A more justified instance of government over-reach would have been questioning the fitness and judgment of parents who name their child after a Marvel villain (even in Norse Mythology Loki is a bad guy) and who feel compelled to saddle a kid with “Skywalker” because he happened to be born on May the 4th, as in “May the forthe be with you,” which is how Obi Wan said it after his front teeth fell out.
At least they didn’t name him “Chewbacca” or “Darth.”
Final tangential thought: Not too long ago Ethics Alarms used to have an entertainingly didactic British commenter whom I could count on to “pounce” on posts like this. I miss him…
Once Again, Trump Is Being Skewered For Telling the Truth
Donald Trump handed the Trump-Hating Axis another stick to beat him with when he commented on recent polls showing American Jews supporting the Democrats by a 60%-40% margin. “I’ve said long and loud anybody who’s Jewish and loves being Jewish and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for a Democrat,” Trump said. “If you want Israel to survive you need Donald J. Trump as the 47th president of the United States, it’s very simple.”
For this typically blunt observationTrump is being called, of all things, “anti-Semitic.” No, the correct word is “undiplomatic.” Another word is “correct.”
Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Georgetown’s Qatar Conference”
American Antisemitism Sunday continues with one of Steve-O-in NJ’s trademark historical commentaries in response to today’s post, “Ethics Quiz: Georgetown’s Qatar Conference.”
And here it is!
[I also could have justifiably credited Steve with an Ethics Quote of the Week, which you will find below: “[E]thical leaders of any cause owe those they lead a duty to realize when the conflict has become unwinnable and then seek an end to the conflict.”]
***
I don’t know about unethical, but it’s surely tone-deaf, in bad taste, and divisive in light of the current situation and in light of what this symposium seems to cover. A discussion about the now almost 80-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict is certainly possible, assuming it were a balanced one. A discussion of terrorism through the last two centuries which would include the difference between political (in support of a political goal) and millennial terrorism (where the violence is the goal), changes in viability with technology, counter-terror tactics and their evolution, and so on could be very interesting. However, this sounds like a pity party for Palestine and a hate-fest for Israel. It’s allowable, just barely, under free speech and academic freedom, as long as it sticks to discussion, although I think it’s going to generate a lot of heat and very little light. If it’s going to be a seeding place for violent demonstrations, forget it.
Truth be told, trying to nail down any kind of ethical framework around terrorism is like trying to staple water to a wall. Some deliberately try to separate the two by saying things like “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Frankly that’s the lazy way out, although it IS true that our biases are going to color how we view one cause vs. another cause and what kind of tactics we can justify. Rebellions of one kind or another have been around almost as long as mankind has organized itself into this group vs. that group, and certainly since the days when mankind had empires. The Romans were often able to stymie that by making the conquered peoples into junior partners, but some peoples, like the Jews, the Britons, and so on, wanted no part of that kind of arrangement, and had to be essentially destroyed to the point where organized resistance was no longer viable. In a time when both sides had essentially the same weapons, it was all about numbers. Certain tactics like ambushes and targeted eliminations, proto-terrorism if you will, worked to some degree, but usually couldn’t win. If the rebel side had insufficient numbers or was dispersed to the point where it couldn’t get sufficient numbers together, violent resistance wasn’t viable. Rebels or bandits could give the other side a very hard time (Hereward the Wake, the Knights of St. John at Rhodes), but in the end causes like that were usually either doomed, or only went anywhere when they COULD amass numbers enough to wage something like a real civil war.
Unethical Quote of the Week: Hillary Clinton
“I think it’s important to indict the Russians, just as Muller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States.”
—-Ethics Villain Hillary Clinton, on MSNBC (of course) this week, as Rachel Maddow nodded in agreement.
The irony and hypocrisy in Hillary’s statement are striking. After all, it it was her campaign that funded the infamous Steele dossier and spread false stories of Russian collusion during her failed 2016 Presidential run, culminating in the investigation Democrats used to cripple and delegitimize the Trump Presidency. Meanwhile, Hillary remains an icon to the same party that claims Donald Trump is a threat to American liberty, and much of the insane hate the Axis has been focusing on Trump since 2016 was inspired by his “crime” of stopping Clinton from becoming President.
__________
Pointer: Jonathan Turley
American Antisemitism Sunday on Ethics Alarms Kicks Off With This Ethics Quiz: Georgetown’s Qatar Conference
The Jerusalem Post reports in part:
[Georgetown University] is hosting a Hamas-affiliated media personality as a keynote speaker at a conference, in addition to other officials from designated terror organizations…..titled “Reimagining Palestine,” [concluding today] in Qatar. One of the main speakers was Wadah Khanfar, a former official at Qatar’s mouthpiece Al Jazeera whose relationship with Hamas has been well-documented throughout the years. Khanfar was named as an early leader of Hamas’s office in Sudan by multiple Arabic-speaking outlets, including the Palestinian Raya Media Network, the Yemen-based Mareb Press, and the British Al-Arab website. Likewise, according to Mohamed Fahmy, a former Al Jazeera English Egypt bureau chief, the Muslim Brotherhood described Khanfar in 2007 as “one of the most prominent leaders in the Hamas office in Sudan.” Khanfar was also reportedly connected to the al-Aqsa Foundation in South Africa, which the US Treasury Department designated “a critical part of Hamas terrorist support infrastructure.” ….Other speakers at the conference included Shawan Jabarin, who is closely affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another designated terror organization, and Issam Younis, who in the past supported Hamas’s oppressive rule in Gaza…
The Washington Free Beacon, the conservative publication, adds (because the mainstream news media doesn’t think this is newsworthy]:
The speakers at the “Reimagining Palestine” event will discuss the “ideological shifts” of Zionism, “art as resistance,” and “anti-colonial struggles,” and will engage in “dialogue that challenges the status quo,” according to the Doha event’s website.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is….
Is it ethical for an American institution of higher learning to do this in the midst of the Israel-Hamas War?
Kamala Harris, the “Integrity? What’s Integrity?” Candidate
As an ethicist, I don’t have to agree with a Presidential candaidtes policies to find him or her ethical, unless a policy are per se unethical (like validating terrorism by forcing a ceasefire on Israel before it has destroyed Hamas), involves not enforcing laws (like at the Southern border) or violates the Constitution (as with Gov. Walz’s declarion that “hate speech” should be illegal). However, as an ethicist, it is explicitly my business when a Presidential candidate demonstrates a cynical contempt for integrity as an ethical value, for integrity is one of the most important of ethical values. An individual without integrity cannot be trusted.
Harris’s whole campaign is an effort to pretend integrity is a myth. Bernie Sanders issued a damning verdict on Harris (and himself) when he told NBC’s “Meet the Press “ that despite her efforts to moderate her positions since taking over from Joe Biden on the top of the ticket, such as purporting to support fracking and opposing “Medicare for All,” Harris was just being “pragmatic” and “doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.”
In other words, lying.
From the “Ethics Corrupters” File: “Law and Order SVU,” “Part 33.”
I got sick of “Law and Order: SVU” long ago, so this 2019 episode, from the 20th season (and it’s still going!) escaped my ethics radar until I reached it by accident this morning and had to watch the whole thing as an obligation to Ethics Alarms.
The episode titled “Part 33” is a perfect example of how popular culture is corrupting American values and ethics problem-solving skills with Hollywood’s constant propaganda opposing personal responsibility, the Rule of Law, and promoting emotion-based judgement rather than decisions based on fact and logic.
‘OK, Maybe He Beats His Kid, But What Matters Is That He’s A Great Mayor’
I’m paraphrasing there, just to be clear. The actual statement, from Atlantic City Mayor Marty Small’s lawyer referring to his client and his client’s wife being charged with child abuse, was this head-blower:
“In fact, since elected mayor, Mayor Small has faithfully discharged all the duties, responsibilities and obligations of his office. So there is no public element to this indictment. It is all about private family affairs within the Small household.”
You are wrong, Zealous Representation Breath, but nice try anyway. Small’s lawyer, Edwin Jacobs, was stressing that the indictment did not accuse Small of official misconduct in his role as mayor, as he tried to assist his client in avoiding the political backlash from the charges (which Small denies, of course). This is arguably justifiable nit-picking in defense of a client, but it is also the kind of technical lawyer-speak that makes the whole profession look slimy.
Ethics Alarms 