Here’s an eye-opener: N.J. Senator Bob Menendez, possibly the most corrupt U.S. Senator, was indicted for the second time in his career yesterday. This time, he may really end up in jail. In 2018, Menendez beat a bribery charge for using his position to advance the interests of Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen. Melgen had showered Menendez with political donations, luxury vacations in his Dominican villa (you know, like Clarence Thomas has been getting from Republican billionaires) and private jet flights (you know, like Clarence Thomas has been getting from Republican billionaires). That time he got a hung jury by employing an “everybody does it” defense and the “he’s just a dear friend and he likes me” bit. This time, that won’t be enough. The indictment points out that “Over $480,000 in cash and gold bars — much of it stuffed into envelopes and hidden in clothing, closets, and a safe — was discovered in the [Menendez] home.” There are photos.
The New York Times actually has a comedy critic, Jason Zinoman, which is fine. Still, someone needs to tell him to avoid writing about ethics, which he apparently does not comprehend. I, in contrast, have extensive experience in both comedy and ethics, and can say with confidence that his column “Lying in Comedy Isn’t Always Wrong, but Hasan Minhaj Crossed a Line” is the worst published ethics analysis I have read this year, and perhaps ever. Zimmerman’s column is ethics nonsense from the headline to the end.
Let’s start with the headline. There is no lying in comedy, any more than there’s lying in any performing art. Since the sole purpose of comedy is to make a targeted audience laugh, anything goes, or should. (This is one of the rare instances of my being in agreement with Bill Maher). For now, I don’t want to be distracted into justifying anything other than making stuff up, which stand-up comics do regularly and should, but if they are pretending something is true when it isn’t, that’s not unethical. It isn’t unethical because they are comedians, and their audience knows—or should— what their purpose is not to inform, but to amuse.
Since so much of what a comic says is not true—a duck, a Canadian and an acrobat did not walk into a bar—-there is no breach of trust when that comic states anything else as a fact when it isn’t. Dave Chappelle often starts a story by saying, “This is true,” which means that he has decided that the story is going to be funnier if the audience thinks of it as really happening. I don’t assume the story is true because Chappelle says so, but he’s asking for the suspension of disbelief from his audience, just as “The Exorcist” was when it showed Regan’s head turn backwards. We suspend our disbelief in the possessed little girl to be horrified; we suspend disbelief in what comedians say to be amused.
The target of Zinoman’s accusation of unethical comedy is, as the headline states, Hasan Minhaj, who has a Netflix concert streaming. He can’t have “crossed a line” because there are no lines. There are no ethicd rules for comics, nor can or should there be.
Here is an example of what Zinoman calls “crossing a line”:
Apparently this is going to be Unethical New York Times Op-ed Columnist Day. First David Brooks proves beyond all question that he’s an asshole, and now Michelle Goldberg pulls ahead in the neck-and-neck race to be the most outrageously left-biased writer in the Times stable (“And as they round the turn, it’s Paul Krugman in front, with Charles Blow coming up fast on the inside…”) by ending her column attacking retiring Fox News creator Rupert Murdoch with this:
“The electorate that Fox helped shape, and the politicians it indulges, have made this country ungovernable. An unbound Trump may well become president again, bringing liberal democracy in America to a grotesque end. If so, it will be in large part Murdoch’s fault….”
Only a committed and ethics-free leftist propaganda agent who is confident that her readers are Marxists or morons could squeeze out such offal. Oh, I’m sure Goldberg believes this, which is scary in itself: the disgusting thing is that a publication that imagines itself as the flagship of American journalism would deem such a “bias makes you stupid” outburst as worthy of publication.
I don’t know what possessed fake conservative pundit David Brooks to blow up his credibility on Twitter, now known as X, but he did it. I suppose Brooks was performing a public service for those naive enough to regard his pronouncements as coming down from the mount: Brooks styles himself as an elite intellectual, and what he did was as dunderheaded as any half-sloshed dockworker could aspire to. His tweet was also dishonest, and obviously so; maybe now fewer people will stop regarding his pontifications as worth reading, something I did years ago.
In case you missed this mini-scandal, Brooks posted the photo above that he took with his smartphone, and wrote, “This meal just cost me $78 at Newark Airport. This is why Americans think the economy is terrible.” These are the kinds of impulsive outbursts that social media encourages; I don’t know, maybe Brooks was in a bad mood, or frustrated, or half-sloshed himself. But anyone who has been in an airport restaurant knows that meal didn’t cost $78. It certainly cost too much, because eating in airports, like eating at ballgames, makes you a victim of a captive environment: a pulled pork sandwich and fries with a bottle of beer recently cost me 36 bucks at Nationals Park. Brooks, however, was cheating, and unfortunately for him, the restaurant he smeared exposed him. Good.
I barely have to comment on this one. Incredibly, the British House of Commons sent the letter above to Chris Pavlovsky, asking Rumble’s CEO to censor actor/comic Russell Brand as YouTube has (discussed in this post from yesterday.)
Pavlovsky’s response:
The Brits really never have gotten our Constitution, have they? Unfortunately, an increasing number of Americans, including those who run news, social media and Big Tech platforms don’t get it either.
On September 15, 2022, Calvin Ushery was clearly shown on a surveillance video as he stomped 68-year-old Chang Suh, a Korean-American jewelry shop owner and hit him over the head at least a dozen times, twice with a hammer. Ushery then stole about $100,000 in merchandise. The evidence, including the video, was indisputable and beyond rebuttal, so his lawyer argued for jury nullification, slyly, because in Delaware, like all but one state (New Hampshire), arguing that a jury should ignore the law is an ethics violation. He said the video would doubtlessly raise “a lot of emotion,” but argued that the jurors’ revulsion shouldn’t be focused on the defendant.
Oh. What?Who then? Surely not his victim, who after a year is still not recovered from the beating (that’s him in a shot from the video). Oh come on—you know the answer by now, don’t you? The emotion should be aimed at the systemic racism that made Ushery into the dangerous enemy of civilization that he is. He needs diversity, equity and inclusion, not punishment. What are we, barbarians?
And that defense message worked! The jury was hung, and a mistrial declared. In the eyes of the law, despite video evidence that he committed a brutal crime, Calvin Ushery is technically innocent.
Elie Mystal is surely thrilled. The racist, anti-police, anti-Constitution Marxist editor for “The Nation,” also a frequent visitor to MSNBC (naturally), argued in 2016 that black jurors should always vote to acquit black defendants, no matter how guilty they may be and no matter how horrible the crime.
“Maybe it’s time for black people to use the same tool white people have been using to defy a system they do not consent to: jury nullification,” Mystal wrote in an op-ed. “White juries regularly refuse to convict or indict cops for murder. White juries refuse to convict vigilantes who murder black children. White juries refuse to convict other white people for property crimes. Maybe it’s time minorities got in the game?” he continued. “Black people lucky enough to get on a jury could use that power to acquit any person charged with a crime against white men and white male institutions.”
Well, that’s our Elie! His degrees from Harvard and Harvard Law School didn’t imbue him with enough critical reasoning skill to overcome his hatred of anyone who isn’t black, and to see his his “burn, baby, burn” nostrums for societal improvement as the garbage that they are. True, Mystal was only hoping that blacks could abuse, rob, rape and kill white people, but nothing in his op-ed ruled out using jury nullification to let minorities—like Mr. Suh—be victimized without justice too. Black criminals’ lives matter more than the lives of law-abiding citizens, which is one prime reason why so many cities are descending into permanent chaos. Over-incarceration, don’t you know.
The Ushery verdict has so far escaped coverage in the mainstream media.
It is ironic that serial Ethics Villain and NEA president Randi Weingarten writes that her tweet “speaks for itself” when it is indeed a wonderful example of res ipsa loquitur, but not in the way Weingarten would have us believe.
The teacher was not fired for reading the “Diary of Anne Frank” to her class, but for using “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” without proper authorization from the school and using it to launch a class discussion of sexual molestation. The graphic version, in the style of a comic book…
…is true to Frank’s original diary but contains the sexual and other content that was taken out of the original version published by Frank’s father. The graphic novel-syle version has been critically praised, but the previously redacted material it includes are of a nature that require sensitive instruction and certainly prior approval by parents.
Weingarten misidentified the book involved due to carelessness, devotion to her political agenda, or deliberate deception, none of which are qualities any responsible parent wants in their child’s teachers. Yet Weingarten is the teacher the teachers’ union chose to represent and lead it.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant ( 1724 – 1804) was the all-time champ at rules-based ethics, concocting several useful formulations of what he called “the categorical imperative,”or the principle of absolute morality. All of them are, as absolutes, the starting points for hopelessly convoluted debates and “what ifs?,” but philosophy geeks love that stuff. For me, the main value of Kant’s absolutism as that they are useful for pinging ethics alarms.
Kant’s “Formula of Humanity” stated (in German, of course): “So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means,” or in the short version, “Never treat another human being as merely as means to an end.”
Abortion, for example, is an ethical controversy that Kant clarifies quickly: abortion rationalizers have long tried to duck the “Formula of Humanity” by denying that a fetus with human DNA created by humans that will grow to be a born and eventually a walking, talking, member of human society isn’t a human being at all, and thus killing it for the benefit of its mother isn’t using whatever it is as a means to an end.
You can get in the high weeds of Kant’s most famous rule here. For instance, Kant holds that it may be wrong for a person to treat himself or herself merely as a means: now there’s a metaphorical rabbit hole. But for the purposes of this post, let’s just look at two recent examples of people who probably can’t spell Kant, never mind recognize when they are defying him.
Damn Palm Springs, California: I was about to quit for the day, but I had to return to the blog for this ridiculous story.
The Palm Springs AIDS Memorial Task Force is now backtracking after revealing its preliminary choice for a memorial to the victims of AIDS. The memorial is being funded privately with an expected cost of approximately $500,000. After considerable study, the winning design, planned for erection (Stop it!) in the Downtown Park near the Marilyn Monroe statue is a nine feet tall limestone structure with concentric carved circles, symbolizing, we are told, “the diverse impact of AIDS on the community” and ” intended to evoke feelings of connection, reflection, and hope.”
It also looks a lot like an anus. Not that there’s anything wrong with that….
Ethics Alarms 