In his Comment of the Day, Chris Marschner, among Ethics Alarms’ most articulate and astute commenters, writes, “Please excuse my rambling rant.” No excusing is necessary: Chris was using a stream of consciousness technique to express that frustration many—I’m tempted to say anyone paying attention—feel as they face the prospect of having to choose between the reckless and untrustworthy creep who is the likely Republican nominee, and an insatiable, power-lusting Democratic Party that in its has made it crystal clear that it no longer respects the American mission, the Constitution, or much else.
His post was well-timed: I’ve been planning an examination of the ethics zugzwang Donald Trump’s legal problems (and the Democratic Party’s criminalizing of politics) citizens like Chris now find themselves in. That’s Scylla and Charybdis above: Odysseus had an easier choice deciding which would be more disastrous than what we might face in November of 2024.
You have changed my mind: I will not vote. Screw it.
There are no suitable candidates. You have lying Biden, who tells a gold star mother he brought his own son back in a flag draped coffin during the dignified transition of remains, and the other candidates are just asking for money and not giving me a different alternative. We have D.C. judges sitting in on Trumps arraignment. Why did Judge Amy Berman Jackson and other federal judges feel it necessary to be present in the courtroom for this arraignment other than to send a message? But all we seem to focus on is the stupid shit Trump says.
How ethical was it for Trump’s legal team to be given 1 day to respond to a late Friday motion to prevent Trump from getting discovery by Jack Smith’s team when the typical time frame is apparently 14 days and Trumps team pleaded for 3 days? Why are we not discussing the ethical dimensions of such judicial conduct? I don’t care if Trump is a mass murderer; when our judicial system is abused against the rights of an accused we have bigger problems than Chris Christie’s feelings. If it is unethical to behave as Trump does when his adversary makes a point to harm him, then we should also be discussing the ethics of Christie, who starts the fights.
Michael West, who used to weigh in here far more frequently than he has been able to in recent years, issued a well-timed commentary in last week’s Friday open forum. It’s a perfect intro, if a bit ironic, to a post I’ll get up today if climate change doesn’t kill us all about the intractable reaction some have had to yesterday’s heresy that Donald Trump has officially jumped the legitimate Presidential candidate shark. The recent ban-ee actually sounded like Trump, warning me of dire consequences should I not succumb to his arguments and dance to his off-key tune.
Here is Michael West’s Comment of the Day on the most recent open forum:
***
On the widening worldview dichotomy, objectivity and debate:
Can a progressive commenter ever last here anymore?
The complaints that this is a conservative echo chamber have some practical merit – in that most of the commenters here have a libertarian or conservative lean. The progressives all left, mostly of their own accord, many because their own assertions painted themselves into logic corners from which all they had left was the vitriol that eventually got them banned.
Therein lies the question – can a progressive commenter last here without admitting that their entire train of thought has gone off the rails? And once a progressive commenter does have that realization – can they honestly remain progressive anymore?
As the saying goes, “When someone tells you who they really are, believe them.” We have enough evidence to see with our own eyes and ears who Trump is and who he is not and that should not be relevant to who Joe Biden is and who he is not.
This entry, the previous one in the latest installment of the “Nation of Assholes” series and the one before that about Rudy Giuliani’s untrustworthy secret recorder have all coalesced in my mind this weekend as I have spent several days wearing myself out over planning for a pop-culture convention next week by following other conventions in other cities on social media to determine how the shows are accommodating the guests’ requirements under SAG-AFTRA’s strike rules and what that means for how I should approach any celebrity guest I wish to meet.
I get tired of holding the hands of new convention-goers who don’t understand the rules, ask for clarification and end up not following my advice. I get tired of veteran convention-goers who think they have the right to get around the rules. For entitled people who cut lines, who try to sweet-talk the guest into extra perks and who make little to no effort to ask polite, intelligent questions. They make everything harder on everyone else. Celebrities won’t want to attend these things if people don’t understand or respect boundaries. I have too many stories to recount of fans acting like inconsiderate asses and those stories are from before the pandemic.
We are already an entitled enough culture that treats celebrities like commodities, as if buying a movie ticket or following a TV program requires that anyone who appeared in the same owes us unlimited time, an autograph, a selfie, a kidney… One of the best things about the strike is that it’s finally becoming somewhat public knowledge that most actors aren’t millionaires.
We treat others like us even worse. Not only do we not put most of our fellow citizens on pedestals, but we don’t even afford them the basic respect of treating them the way we would want to be treated. As long as there’s something in it for us, I guess…
Somehow, qualities of character, such as honesty, integrity, patience, kindness, self-control (sorry, I think I wandered into the Fruits of the Spirit from the Bible) seem to have been lost very quickly. We are a mess as a culture and there’s a lot of blame to go around, not least because we have forgotten the Golden Rule.
What I have trouble dealing with is how incoherent some of the positions some of the people are taking are.
Legacy admissions are a great example. We all know why they’re happening: Legacy admissions are a great way of enticing future philanthropy out of donor parents. While I’m sure there are some racists in admissions, that’s financially driven, not racially driven. But we pretend it’s a racial issue because of disparate impact.
In fact, we’re supposed to pretend that legacy admissions are a resource of white supremacy, despite the fact that legacy admissions are almost perfectly proportionate, at least for white applicants (hovering very close to 70%). I don’t know about you, but if I were designing a system that was supposed to privilege my race over others, I might devise a system where my race isn’t almost perfectly proportionately treated.
Many people who question anthropogenic global climate change have good reason to do so. Here are a few of the facts that make believing the anthropogenicity of climate change difficult for me.
This “hottest days ever” claim has been shown to be mostly false. For example, the Rome data point was from a model, not actual data. Indeed, while the temperature measured was almost two degrees Celsius below what the high was claimed to be, that high was under previous highs from the last few decades recorded in Rome. The actual temperature of the day in question was 40C, measured at the Urbe airport, not 41.8. Rome’s highest temperature ever recorded is not 40.8C as claimed, but instead 42C. This high temperature was recorded at the Ponte di Nona bus station in 2005.
Ah, how I love it when readers send in superb and informative Comments of the Day when I am strapped for time and have ProEthics deadlines to meet! This post in particular has generated several COTD-worthy responses. I may re-post them all.
One of my big problems with the whole ‘climate change’ agenda is that the people who are pushing it don’t believe it, either. If they believed it, they would push agendas that would further the goal of counteracting global warming, but they don’t. They push agendas that are outrageously expensive, damaging to the economy and the well-being of people, and don’t do much, if anything, about the warming of the planet.
(1) Electric vehicles. This is an easy one. The demand to eliminate cars and trucks and replace them with electric vehicles is a high-profile and telling example. First of all, electric vehicles are not capable of replacing many of our vehicles, such as semis. Secondly, we probably lack the resources to replace even most of our cars (alone) with electric vehicles, especially since we oddly won’t allow the mining required to obtain the materials. Thirdly, of electric grid is completely incapable of powering this massive addition to the electric load, especially since we are making it more unreliable with renewables. Most importantly, however, THEY DON’T REDUCE CO2 emissions significantly or at all. Their increased energy involved in production and the battery replacement cycle makes them worse or marginally better than today’s gasoline powered cars (depending on your assumptions). For my use, my gasoline powered cars are better for the environment.
(2) Meat. There is a big push to eliminate meat from our diets for ‘global warming’. However, anyone with half a brain realizes that the ‘fake meat’ they are creating takes vastly more energy to produce than a cow does. Lets take a large vat of rhizobium and extract a few hundred milligrams of leg-hemoglobin so we can make our soybean patty taste like meat? Sure, that’s so much more efficient than a cow or chicken. Of course, a lot of our beef is grown on western grazing lands where you are ONLY allowed to graze cattle. Removing the cows from that land, without opening it up to other agriculture (as the Biden administration has done) only reduces the amount of food produced, increasing the world starvation we are facing.
My position on parents endangering young children by seeking “all-time youngest” records for them and forcing them into unnecessarily dangerous recreational activities the kids can’t possibly understand or consent to is, I fear, unalterable. (Above is the 1996 wreck of the plane piloted by 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff, whose parents had her attempting to become the youngest trainee pilot to fly a light aircraft across the United States. Local, national, and international news media cheered on Dubroff’s story until she, her training pilot and her father died in the crash. )
I think there may be a misunderstanding on how Wyoming papers handle kid stories which I think changes a few things.
In small towns like most of Wyoming (not the urban hell that is Casper, Cheyenne, or Laramie), a story with a kid gets written long before a story about Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney. I made the front page of our local paper at least a half dozen times as a kid, and made the paper dozens of times. Every year, the middle school and high school band/choir concerts would make the front page the day after they were held. If you consider that we did three concerts a semester for each of band and choir in high school, and two concerts a semester for each of middle school band and choir, that is ten days where the kids make the front page each school year. The high school homecoming royalty would make the front page on Thursday after the Wednesday reveal, the parade would always make front page on Friday, the game on Saturday, with the dance making page two. Prom was front page material. When four kids from our school got the best scholarship to the University of Wyoming one year, we made the front page. Every semester honor roll for every level of school made about third page. Placing in a math competition, debate competition, etc would always get a name in the paper, usually a picture too, and often on the front page. High school sports covered the front page every week.
I say this to emphasize my belief that this shouldn’t be considered as bad as you think. Newspapers gush over “youngest” this and “oldest” that. It makes people read the paper. National news is a page six or eight item and international news, like a war between Ukraine and Russia, is usually found below the fold on the comics page, under the Sudoku and Dear Abby.
People want the stories with the kids. Front page news is preferred to have a picture of a kid. A kid doing something good, like winning the coupon for a free pizza at the drawing at the library book fair, is a great front page story. Getting to the top of Devil’s Tower is just as good, and should be considered with the same gravity.
This is just standard newspaper fodder, nothing to get so excited about.
There are more than the usual reasons to publish JutGory’s overview of the absurdity riddling Ben & Jerry’s fatuous July 4th Tweet exhorting the U.S. to “return” “stolen indigenous land” to the Native American tribes. The most unusual one is that WordPress has temporarily (I hope!) lost its damn mind, and has replaced all commenter names on the recent posts with the Borg-like “[1].” As a result, readers are unable to tell who wrote Jut’s comment, for which we should all be grateful.
The main one is that the oft-heard demand that the United States should return the nation to “the Indians” is historically, legally, ethically and realistically batty and ignorant, and drives me nuts every time I hear or read it. Jut concisely explains why it’s nuts historically and legally. He does not go into the aspect of the matter than is usually ignored by shallow thinkers like whoever wrote the Ben & Jerry tweet, which is that if the U.S. hadn’t been in possession of its current mainland North American territory in the 1940s, Nazi Germany would have overrun it and probably the world, and reduced the happy, innocent hunter-gatherers there to either slaves or ashes. Tragic as the current status of the tribes is today, it is a lot better than that. Similarly Hawaii, where there is no question that the residents were robbed of their islands, would have been conquered by the Japanese. If Secretary Seward had not bought Alaska from the Russians, all of us, including the Native Americans, might have been blasted into the Stone Age (where, admittedly, the tribes would have been more confortable than the Europeans) by the Soviets.
I am not exactly saying that Native Americans should be grateful they were over-run, but rather that, as JutGory correctly points out, you can’t turn back the clock.
Just another example of Twitter’s inability to facilitate an exploration of subtle thoughts.
Does the US exist on “stolen land”?
Sort of.
Apparently, Manhattan was purchased from indigenous people, just not the ones who “owned” the land. That would make the US a good faith purchaser for value.
But, really, that was a fraud perpetrated on the Dutch, or maybe the English. But, we got it from England fair and square in the Treaty of Paris. All of the original states were stolen from England.
We bought the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon. That was another big portion of the US.
And, the Mexican-American War, contrived as it may have been, was settled legally.
Then, there was Texas.
A huge portion of the US was obtained legally from other thieves.
Tom P‘s Comment of the Day on the 4th of July begins by noting that “if the principles depicted in the above quotes were taught in our schools and supported by the populous,” many of today’s most contentious issues would not be the battle grounds they are. I think that’s right. Unfortunately, not only are the vast majority of those quotes not taught, almost none of the speakers and writers who issued them could be identified by the average citizen. The second group is a bit more challenging, but minimally educated Americans should at least know Clarence Darrow, Daniel Webster, George Orwell and William O.Douglas. Do they? I doubt it. I supposed it would be too much to add Thomas Sowell to the “must recognize” list. I hope, but am far from sure, that Thomas Jefferson’s famous opening to the Declaration of Independence would be known to all, but then Joe Biden, President of the United States, recently confused it with the Constitution, so I have my doubts.
In Part 1, I would say that basic civic and cultural literacy mandates recognition of the names and significance of Presidents Adams, Lincoln, Carter, and Wilson, Ben Franklin, Herman Melville, John Marshall (if I do say so myself), yes and George Bernard Shaw and Jimmy Durante too, dammit!
Here is Tom P’s Comment of the Day on the posts, “Ethics Quotes For The Fourth: On Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy” (Parts 1 &2):
***
If the principles depicted in the above quotes were taught in our schools and supported by the populous, there would be no necessity for cramming LGBTQ propaganda down everyone’s throat. Affirmative Action, DEI, Critical Race Theory, and the 1619 project; none of these divisive concepts could gain any serious traction. The liberty-stealing, totalitarian progressive movement would have been stillborn.
There are unmistakable signs that the mainstream news media, that is, the propaganda arm of the progressive Borg and the Democratic Party, may be ready to report on the Biden family influence-peddling scandal that they have been burying for years. The reason seems to be that they have decided that Biden is a Dead President Walking, and the sooner he can be LBJed and forced to withdraw from the 2024 Presidential race, the more likely it is that the “resistance”/ Democrats/MSM’s “Get Trump!” efforts will finally succeed. Yesterday, the White House Counsel issued this fascinating bit of subterfuge:
“As we have said many times before, the President was not in business with his son. As we have also said many times before, the Justice Department makes decisions in its criminal investigations independently, and in this case, the White House has not been involved. As the President has said, he loves his son and is proud of him accepting responsibility for his actions and is proud of what he is doing to rebuild his life.”
Wow, hanging a straw man and moving the goalposts at the same time! When was the issue ever Joe “being in business with his son?” The question is and remains the degree to which the President was aware of Hunter’s influence peddling schemes in which Joe was a necessary participant, when he learned about them, if he facilitated them (out of love, naturally) and whether he has been lying about all of it.
It pays to be the king, doesn’t it? Queen Elizabeth, may she rest in peace, used to say the best approach is “never complain, never explain.” She could do it too, because she didn’t answer to anyone. Democrats in office have a tendency to believe that they answer to no one, and given that Biden supposedly got the most votes of any president to date, more popular even than his old boss, why should they think otherwise? The thing is, it’s one thing for Buckingham Palace issue a statement saying that his majesty is done discussing a wayward, publicity seeking second son, it’s quite another to simply refuse to address obvious corrupt dealings and tell the press to pipe down.
1. It’s not a matter of incompetence for the White House not to have an answer prepared for this question. It’s a matter of the White House refusing to answer this question until the media gets the point, and moves on.
2. …And until the public gets the message that this issue is over and moves on to re-electing our most incompetent president yet, making sure we keep dangerous demagogues out of the White House.
3. It worked for Bill, didn’t it? Deny until you can no longer deny, then trickle information out so slowly that the media and the public forget about it, then say it’s a closed issue and you have important work to do, so let’s move on, already.
4. Turley is absolutely right, but his being right has no more value than classmates who see the class bully beating up the least popular member of the class. No one is going to do anything about it. .
6. If you wonder what they would have said you can always go over to Democratic underground or the Daily Kos. Same effect without having to put up with garbage from blue Kool-Aid drinkers and Bidenbots who display all the intelligence of a slug.
7. It looks like the nation dodged a bullet. McConnell did the wrong thing by refusing to grant a hearing to a nominee, and he did it for the wrong reasons by trying to shaft the sitting president, but in the end, he got the right result, which was keeping a partisan hack off the Supreme Court. Frankly, Obama has no one but himself to blame. He was the one who refused to build the relationships with members of Congress from the other party that he needed in order to work effectively with them and get important things done. He was the one who looked down his nose at the other party and characterized them as the enemy. He was also the one who was not able to persuade the notorious RBG not to step down while the stepping was good, so she died just in the nick of time so that she could be replaced by (horrors!) a conservative woman. In effect, it’s as much his fault as anyone else’s that Roe v Wade is history. Chuck the Schmuck helped set the precedent, though, when he said that the Senate should basically declare judicial nominations closed when there were 18 months still to go in George W. Bush’s second term.
It really all boils down to one political party having to eat the bitter herbs of their previous errors.
That said, all of this has a chance, maybe even a very good chance, of blowing up in the Democratic Party’s face. Maybe it gets to the point where the media can’t ignore it, or maybe someone in the mainstream media grows a backbone. Maybe someone at Fox gets in touch with a contact like Woodward and Bernstein. It’s a race between this fuse finally reaching the keg of TNT and the next election, and no one really knows how long this fuse is. I hope it goes kablooey before this nation can be deceived into giving this senile old puppet and his masters a second chance, but we’ll see.
Ethics Alarms 