Unethical (And Ominous) Quote Of The Month: 600 “Members Of The Writing, Publishing, And Broader Literary Community”[Link Fixed]

“As members of the writing, publishing, and broader literary community of the United States, we care deeply about freedom of speech. We also believe it is imperative that publishers uphold their dedication to freedom of speech with a duty of care. We recognize that harm is done to a democracy not only in the form of censorship, but also in the form of assault on inalienable human rights. As such, we are calling on Penguin Random House to recognize its own history and corporate responsibility commitments by reevaluating its decision to move forward with publishing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s forthcoming book….”

—Signatories (600 and rising) from the world of publishing in an open letter titled “We Dissent,” demanding that Penguin Random House refuse to publish a book by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Here is the whole, head-exploding, censorious thing, an “it isn’t what it is” (Yoo’s Rationalization again!) classic that could have been composed by the lackeys of “1984’s” Big Brother: Continue reading

Modern Art Ethics: Amusing Evidence That Abstract Art Is The Con Game You Always Thought It Was

“New York City I,” a painting by acclaimed Dutch abstract artist Piet Mondrian that is composed of interlacing red, yellow, black and blue adhesive tapes, has been hanging upside down in various museums since it was first put on display in 1941. The painting was first exhibited at New York’s MoMA in 1945, and has hung at the art collection of the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia in Düsseldorf since 1980. An art historian has found, embarrassingly enough, that it has been displayed wrong all this time. but warned it could disintegrate if it was hung the right side up now.

When curator Susanne Meyer-Büser started researching the museum’s new show on the Dutch avant garde artist earlier this year, she realized the work was intended to be turned 180 degrees. Since it is supposed to suggest the New York City skyline, she explained, ““the thickening of the grid should be at the top, like a dark sky. Once I pointed it out to the other curators, we realized it was very obvious. I am 100% certain the picture is the wrong way around.”

Very obvious! Just not obvious enough, apparently, for any of the experts in the field to realize that a “masterpiece” wasn’t what they thought it was.

I’m curious: would the experts have been able to figure out that this painting….

Continue reading

It’s A Late Open Forum!

Sorry…it’s been a madhouse at ProEthics. Thanks to Michael West for politely reminding me what day it is.

This is about the time that visitors to Ethics Alarms start getting scarce for the weekend. I’m curious to see what a tardy Open Forum brings…

“By Any Means Necessary”: The Final Stage In The Axis of Unethical Conduct’s 2022 Mid-Term Election Freak-Out Begins

The frantic efforts of the news media, some Democrats (Rep. Jackie Speier tweeted: “While the motive is still unknown we know where this kind of violence is sanctioned and modeled.”) and ranting bloggers and tweeters like this guy to try to link the certifiable lunatic who attacked Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer to Republicans is just the beginning. Pop that metaphorical popcorn—between now and a week from Tuesday, this will get crazier by the day. Reality has set in. The piper must be paid, the chickens are coming home, the walls are closing in, the jig is up and there’s no way out. The vast majority of those active in the Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance”/the Democratic Party/the mainstream media) are evidently going to thoroughly embarrass themselves and soil our political discourse by ensuring as much confusion, bitterness and division as their imagination, energy and ethics void will permit. It’s going to be ugly, perhaps historically ugly. In “1984” terms, those hungry rats are about to be let loose on these dunces and villains faces, and they will do or say anything, betray any individuals or principles, to avoid the horror. They are in the throes of Rationalization #31, The Troublesome Luxury or “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now” nd #40. The Desperation Dodge or “I’ll do anything!”

Continue reading

“This Is Larry. Tragically, Though He Was Once A Renowned Law Professor, Bias Has Made Him Stupid. Won’t You Give A Tax-Deductable Donation to Help Us Find A Cure For Larry And Victims Like Him?

Tragic. Since retiring as a Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe has destroyed his reputation for integrity and intelligence by sending out one irresponsible, idiotic and politically-deranged social media post after another. It is sad and it is destructive.

The tweet above is Tribe’s latest, a despicable reaction to Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul being “violently assaulted” in a home break-in. There is no evidence, none, that the attack was politically motivated, and it’s not as if San Francisco is a community where people don’t lock their doors: thanks to the progressive madness of the far left ideologues who have taken over the city’s government, the once lovely “city by the bay” has become such a pit of crime and violence that residents and businesses are fleeing. Once, before his mind fled, Tribe was undoubtedly well-versed in Occam’s Razor. Which is more likely, that a wealthy home-owner was the victim of violent crime in a city infested with it, or that the husband of a Democratic leader was beaten by an angry conservative?

Tribe is a lawyer, though I doubt he could pass a bar exam today, or even one of his old exams. What kind of lawyer leaps to a conclusion without evidence, saying in a public forum that “this has to stop” when he can’t possibly know what “this” is? A bad lawyer. An unethical lawyer. A senile lawyer whose embarrassing partisan outbursts need to stop.

Continue reading

Ethics Hero Emeritus: Vasily Arkhipov (1926 –1998)

I was so focused yesterday on commemorating my son’s birthday and the Boston Red Sox’s “curse”-breaking victory, both October 27 highlights, that I neglected to note the minor matter of nuclear war being averted because of the integrity and courage of a Russian naval officer few Americans have heard of. Let me fix that…

October 27, 1962, was right in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were in a stand-off over the discovery of nuclear missiles in Cuba. Any number of miscalculations or rash actions could have triggered a nuclear war. US Navy destroyers located the diesel powered sub B-59, one of a four sub Soviet flotilla, near Cuba and commenced dropping small depth charges to force the submarine to come to the surface for identification. This itself was a risky measure, as the American ships were in international waters.

Soviet Captain Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky misread the tactic and believed the American ships were trying destroy the K-59. His sub had received no contact from Moscow for several days and he was relying on American radio broadcasts to determine what was happening while the USSR and the US were “eyeball to eyeball.” Savitsky sent his vessel deep to hide from the American war ships, and at the resulting depth the B-59 could get no radio signals at all. Savitsky, perhaps addled by stress and conditions on the submarine that included a build-up of carbon dioxide, decided a war had started. He wanted to launch a nuclear torpedo. It wasn’t known by the US. at the time that the B-59 had nuclear weapons. But they it did, and almost used one..

Continue reading

Grant’s Birthday Ethics: Party Favors [Corrected]

I’m being pummeled by ethics annoyances left and right, and I don’t have time tonight to do them all justice, so here are some matters that deserve attention, even if I can’t give them enough…

1 A new IIPTDXTTNMIAFB! Imagine if President Trump had said something a ridiculous as Joe Biden today announcing that the price of gas was “five dollars” when he took office, claiming he had brought the price of gas down. The news media would be calling it a lie, or claim that it was proof that he needed to be replaced under the 25th Amendment. My guess is that Joe wasn’t lying, he just was confused.

2. Talk about unfit for office...New York Gov. Kathy Horchul made two jaw-dropping statments in the lat 24 hours that demonstrate that she is without a clue regarding society, civilization, and human development, as well as proving that she has the instincts of a totalitarian.

Last night, when confronted in their debate by Republican challenger Lee Zeldin over the state’s controversial bail reform law, Hochul responded to his complaint that criminals were not going to jail under the Democratic Party’s policies, including the state’s controversial bail reform law, she responded, “I don’t know why that’s so important to you.” It’s a mystery! Why would anyone want criminals off the street? Then today, announcing new mandatory health regulations, she justified masking requirements for students because “children are used to masks.”

Oh, I’m sure children can get used to all sorts of things: child abuse, shoes that don’t fit, racial indoctrination, non-heterosexual propaganda, red armbands. Masks impeded socialization and social interaction, facial signaling, speech and communication, but hey, as long as they get used to it, no problem!

I know nothing about Lee Zeldin, but Horchul cannot be trusted with a governorship. If New Yorkers elect her, with all of the evidence she’s provided of manifest incompetence, they deserve what they’ll get.

Continue reading

Grant’s Birthday Ethics, 10/27/2022…

On this date in 1994, a baby boy was born to an unmarried Russian girl, who gave him up for adoption. Six months later, my wife and I flew to a grim orphanage in Samara, Russia and engaged in a mad race to adopt the child renowned there as the healthiest infant in the place and get him out of the country before an already-passed ban on international adoptions went into effect. We made it by less than a day, but got Grant Viktor (his Russian name) Bowen Marshall home to Alexandria, Virginia. Here he has grown up to be an all-American male with little in common with his father except scorn for convention and a determination to do it, as Frank and Elvis sang, his way. I am very proud of him, and while most of my aspirations, dreams and projects have ended in disappointment or dust, getting him to these shores to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in his case, automobiles) will be more than enough legacy for me.

Of course, the 27th of October also marks the banner day in 2004 when the Boston Red Sox, my obsession, burden and joy since I was 12 and the source of some my most strongly held ethical perspectives on character, fate, and what really matters in the losing battle called life, finally won the World Series, sweeping the St. Louis Cardinals after coming back from a 0-3 deficit to shock the New York Yankees, who richly deserved it. Grant said, during our household celebration, “Now I know you’ll never forget my birthday.”

He knows me well.

1. Memoir ethics breach: Mathew Perry. The “Friends” actor who has never really soared in his career since the long-time hit sitcom ended, has reached the state where writing a book about his addictions was the best remaining option. He wrote in it, among other observations shared by Variety and the New York Post,while remembering rising young actor River Phoenix whose life was cut short by a drug overdose, “River was a beautiful man, inside and out—too beautiful for this world, it turned out. It always seems to be the really talented guys who go down. Why is it that the original thinkers like River Pheonix and Heath Ledger die, but Keanu Reeves still walks among us?” For some reason admirers of Reeves, and probably the actor himself, though he hasn’t spoken up yet, had a problem with this. Social media began a full on assault. Perry, sensing impending pariah-hood, now says it was just a misunderstanding: “I’m actually a big fan of Keanu. I just chose a random name, my mistake,” Perry told People. “I apologize. I should have used my own name instead.” Right. He’s either an idiot for randomly choosing a star and colleague to denigrate for no good reason, or Perry is lying that it was truly random. Well, he can just blame it all on his addictions…

2. I forgot: in the previous post about the many unethical ways the Left is rallying desperately around John Fetterman, I neglected the rampant use of the worst of all rationalizations, #22 Comparative Virtue, or “It’s not the worst thing.” Many would-be defenders of Fetterman have pointed out that Georgia Republican Herschel Walker has been more or less incoherent on many occasions, and he can’t even claim a stroke as an excuse. No doubt, Walker is an awful candidate and frequently makes no sense, but his lack of fitness for the Senate doesn’t make Fetterman any more fit. A similar flawed theory was used to discredit MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell, who broke ranks with most of her colleagues by telling viewers the truth: Fetterman was very shaky in the debate. This tweeted reaction was typical of many angry MSNBC viewers: “Andrea Mitchell has an agenda. She degraded John Fetterman when talking about last nights debate. All about his stroke. What’s her excuse? She can’t find words when trying to form a sentence.”

So far, there hasn’t been an uptick in desperate media analysts noting that President Biden and Kamala Harris frequently make as little sense as many of Fetterman’s debate responses.

Continue reading

Fetterman Plus Democrats Plus Desperation Equal An “It Isn’t What It Is” Orgy

I don’t watch Tucker Carlson, but I literally landed on Fox News for three minutes last night to hear the pundit note that the mainstream media was now dedicated to making the public disbelieve what it could see with its eyes and hear with its ears. “When that succeeds, the result is slavery,’ he concluded. This is nothing but warmed-over Orwell, but it is right nonetheless. I assume what prompted Carlson’s observation was the frenzied reaction of most (though not all) of the biased news media and Democrats to John Fetterman’s horrific performance in his debate against GOP Senate candidate Mehmet Oz.

Yoo’s Rationalization, or “It isn’t what it is” was a late addition to the Rationalization List, but it has been the Rationalization of the Year each year at least since 2019. 2022, however, has broken all records. As I so sagely predicted months ago when it was obvious (or should have been) that Democrats would be facing an electoral backlash this November, they and their news media are engaging in more and more transparently dishonest and misleading rhetoric, and much of it is of the Yoo variety. Unable to prevail by the superiority of their policies and measurable positive results, the panicked Left is now weaponizing denial as well as one rationalization after another. Fetterman’s ugly performance, with his loss being seen as likely leading to GOP control of the Senate, has kicked this unethical strategy into a new gear.

Let’s begin with reality. Fetterman has refused to release his medical records, and has not recovered sufficiently from a May stroke to be able to speak clearly, form sentences, and understand what is being said to him without technological assistance, meaning that he wouldn’t be able to function in the corridor discussions and informal meetings that are so central to the operation of the Senate. He should have withdrawn when he had the stroke and his party should have replaced him, but in an excess of arrogance and hubris, both were certain that he could prevail against the Trump-endorsed Oz, who was seen as weak alternative. (And he is). Nobody apparently felt that the citizens of Pennsylvania deserved a fully capable representative in the Senate—all that mattered is that Fetterman would be a reliable Far Left vote. The news media scrupulously downplayed the degree of Fetterman’s problems (“Democrats Must Win” is the mission) until NBC reporter Dasha Burns, after having significant contact with Fetterman in October, concluded that Fetterman’s impairments were so significant that even assistive technology didn’t help. She noted that “it wasn’t clear he was understanding our conversation.”

She was immediately attacked by journalists and party loyalists for putting her assessment of the facts above ideological loyalty….you know, what used to be called “journalism.” Then the debate made it clear that Burns was correct. What should have happened after the debacle was for all journalists to report that Fetterman clearly was not fit to serve in the Senate at this point, that voters must decide if they want to gamble that he will recover sufficiently to do the job if elected, and that to that end, his release of his medical records is paramount. Voters, regardless of their political affiliations, ought to be in agreement.

But no.

Continue reading