Government & Politics

Presidents Day Ethics Warm-Up: Sick Of Presidents Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Usually Ethics Alarms has a special Presidents Day feature, but not this year. I hope the mood passes, but right now I am thoroughly sick of the office. Three passions have driven the course of my life, beliefs, interest, pursuits, education, relationships and careers: baseball, Gilbert and Sullivan, and the Presidents of the United States. At this moment, I am disgusted with two of the three.

The accolades being heaped on Jimmy Carter as he has announced that he will wait to die with his family near rather than seek more medical care further sours my mood, because it cripples me with cognitive dissonance. All Presidents deserve the nation’s gratitude and respect, and Carter has led a life devoted to public service. Yet he was a terrible President, and did as much damage to the nation in his four years as any modern POTUS—at least until Joe Biden arrived.

1. “Red Joan” Not helping my mood was watching “Red Joan,” the 2019 British film celebrating the foolish Melita Stedman Norwood, a British civil servant who became a KGB spy in the post-war years. She was convinced that she was doing a good and ethical thing to send nuclear secrets to Stalin’s government so the USSR could develop its own atom bomb. The movie is fictionalized enough that Norwood, played by Judy Dench, is given a different name (Joan Stanley), but the beliefs she espouses are accurate representations of Norwood’s various explanations and rationalizations.

She thought Communism was the hope of the future; she thought the Russians “deserved” to have the nuclear advances developed by the U.S. and Great Britain shared with them; she thought the US using the atom bomb to end World War II was mass murder; and she believed that giving the Soviets the ability to wield nuclear power would prevent World War III—and continued to justify her treachery with the last excuse after she was exposed and caught in her 80s, taking credit for “saving millions of lives.”

My head exploded when the British nuclear scientist who was her lover erupted over learning that she had sent his work to the Soviets, telling her it was madness to give such secrets to a “ruthless dictator” like Stalin. “But we didn’t know that then!” Joan protests.

That’s what ethicists call “contrived ignorance.” Continue reading →

“Good Censorship”: Regarding Ethics Villain Puffin Books And Its Defender, Seth Abramson

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Yes, that’s a dead and rotting puffin above. It should be the new logo for Puffin Books, a division of Penguin. According to Wikipedia, “it has been among the largest publishers of children’s books in the UK and much of the English-speaking world” since the 1960s. According to the Penguin website, Puffin Books is “prestigious.”

According to Ethics Alarms, the children’s book publisher has no regard for authors’ rights, integrity, fairness, literature or language, all rather crucial to its trade, wouldn’t you say? What’s happened at Puffin? Well, what’s happened to Disney, elementary schools and toy makers? ( Clue: Mattel has a gender-fluid line of Barbies).

Puffin has decided that the demands of wokism, political correctness and child indoctrination justify rewriting the works of iconic British author Roald Dahl. Since Dahl’s death, Puffin has made hundreds of changes to his childen’s classics, removing words and passages that The Wonderfully Woke might consider offensive or harmful, even to the extent of adding passages that Dahl never wrote.

What?? I’m assuming that Puffin owns the rights to the books somehow and can do this legally. You want to know why authors like Samuel Beckett made sure his estate had iron-clad control over his works? THIS is why. Please note: it doesn’t matter one whit that Puffin can allow some anonymous censor to rewrite “Charlie and the Choaolate Factory,” it is throbbingly unethical for it to do so.

In the original edition of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” Grandma Josephine speaks of a “crazy Indian prince.” The 2022 edition describes the character as a “ridiculously rich Indian prince.” Augustus Gloop, one of the horrible children in the novel, is no longer described as “enormously fat” as Dahl wrote; he is now   described as “enormous”(whatever that means). Puffin apparently has a fetish about “fat.” Aunt Sponge, in the 2022 edition of “James and the Giant Peach,” is now “quite large” instead of “enormously fat,” leaving the possibility that she could be the size of  The Rock or even a T-Rex. Other passages where Aunt Sponge is described as “fat” have been excised.

Meanwhile, “two ghastly hags” has been changed to “two ghastly aunts.” “Queer” is apparently no longer acceptable to describe a house—just in case its a gay house, I suppose—and was replaced with  “strange.” In “The Witches,”  edits by Puffin made character descriptors gender-neutral, so “chambermaid” became “cleaner.” Though Dahl wrote that a character said, “You must be mad, woman!,” the line is now, “You must be out of your mind!” The line describing a, “Great flock of ladies” was changed to a “Great group of ladies.”

And so on. Continue reading →

Sometimes Republicans Really DO “Pounce,” Or Stop Making Me Defend Joe Biden!

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Speaking in Maryland, President Biden fumbled while extolling Maryland’s first black governor’s days playing wide receiver on the Johns Hopkins football team.

“You got a hell of a new governor in Wes Moore. He’s the real deal and the boy looks like he can still play,” Biden said. “He’s got some guns on him!”

Obviously the President was showing his racist streak, right? After all, calling a black man “boy” is a racist slur. Watch “In the Heat of the Night.” Thus conservative websites, blogs, pundits and news sources have feigned horror, and produced condemnations of Joe’s words–racist dog whistles!—worthy of Charles M. Blow or Joy Reid.

Oh, I get it, I do. This is a genuine IIPTDXTTNMIAFB (Ethics Alarms initials for “Imagine if President Trump did X that the news media is accepting from Biden.”) if there ever was one. The news media’s double standards in regard to Trump and Biden are ridiculous: Donald Trump would be called racist if he referred to a black 7-year-old as a “boy.” In all matters, actions, words and policies, Trump is presumed to have a malign motive, because he’s baaaaaad. Joe, in stark contrast, is always given the benefit of the doubt because he is obviously a nice guy who has never had a mean thought in his life. (He’s not a nice guy, but never mind; I assume you know that.) The conservative and Republican pouncers are just trying to inject some equity into the “gotcha!” wars. “Sauce for the goose” and all that.

Continue reading →

I Am Sorry That Senator Fetterman Is Clinically Depressed But My Sympathy Is Limited

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

ABC News reports:

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman on Wednesday checked himself into a Washington hospital “to receive treatment for clinical depression,” his chief of staff said on Thursday. “While John has experienced depression off and on throughout his life, it only became severe in recent weeks,” Adam Jentleson said in a statement.

Jentleson said that Fetterman was evaluated on Monday by Congress’ attending physician, Dr. Brian P. Monahan, who “recommended inpatient care” at Walter Reed hospital. “John agreed, and he is receiving treatment on a voluntary basis.” “After examining John, the doctors at Walter Reed told us that John is getting the care he needs, and will soon be back to himself,” Jentleson said.

This comes shortly after Fetterman had been hospitalized for “light-headedness.” So, so predictably, the Democratic propaganda agents in the mainstream media are spinning this “time to pay the piper” story as a good thing. “Fetterman draws praise for getting help  for depression” cheered the AP. “John Fetterman is openly discussing his treatment for depression. Few politicians do,” gushed Vox. Wow! Isn’t it wonderful that this guy is unable to do his job, after anyone who questioned his fitness during the campaign  was attacked as being “ablest”?

The announcement raised other questions. Clinical depression is a serious condition: Fetterman never revealed to voters that he experienced depression off and on throughout his life. That information was relevant to voters’ decision, but his office only revealed it now to lessen suspicions that the current problem was related to his stroke. But just last week, the same spokesman blamed his previous hospitalization on the stroke, saying, Continue reading →

Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: George Sen. Emanuel Jones

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

George Santos broke this Ethics Alarms distinction last year, but I still can’t let Georgia State Senator Emanuel Jones get off scot free. I’m not even awarding him “Incompetent Elected Official of the Month” for smearing Clarence Thomas as an “Uncle Tom.” That slimy tactic is well-worn, far from original, and a lazy cliche, as stupid and wrong as it is. MSNBC’s Joy Reid, among other hacks, has used it. The theory seems to be that there is an ongoing race war between blacks and whites, so any black appointed or elected official , including a judge, who doesn’t defy the ethical obligation to serve the whole public and not abuse their position by favoring his own race is an “Uncle Tom.”

I really can’t designate a black state senator “Incompetent” for saying that, since apparently a large number of black voters approve of such divisive and dastardly rhetoric. They are the true incompetents.

No, Jones is more incompetent than the others who have used this lazy slur. Oh, he’s a racist, all right: in the same speech that got him today’s distinction, he said,  “Y’all just don’t get it. And I don’t expect people of non-color to get the sensitivity that we feel.” Nice. But he really scored with his casual admission that he didn’t know the origin of the term “Uncle Tom” or whether Uncle Tom was a real or fictional character. Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Icky Question

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Gwendolyn Herzig, a pharmacist who describes herself as a transgender female, testified in support of the gender-altering treatment of minors during an Arkansas state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week. The legislation, S.B. 199, being considered would prohibit physicians in the state from providing most types of such treatment to minors, including prescribing puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy, or from performing transition-related surgeries. (NBC uses “gender-affirming care,” which is both an oxymoron and cover-phrase devised by pro-transexual activists. Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!)

At one point, Sen. Matt McKee, a Republican, asked Herzig if she has a penis. You can see the exchange above.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is..

Was McKee’s question unethical?

Whatever you may think of the question, Herzig handled it very well.

I could justify the question was going to credibility and bias. The other side of the argument is that it was needlessly embarrassing to the witness, as well as disrespectful.

I wouldn’t have asked it.

RETRACTED!: “5 Ethics Observations On The Woke Student’s Stanford Admission Essay”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

I’m retracting this post, for several reasons. First, it is old, really old, and the source that led me to it for some reason posted it as recent. It does appear to be true, despite the April 1 date on the tweet. Second, some of my points are not valid if the episode was not recent.

This has happened to me a few times before, usually when I’m in a rush, like today. For the second time this week, I had to get my wife to the emergency room, this time at 4:00 am. That’s no excuse: it’s my problem, not yours, and my obligations to my readers don’t change regardless of extenuating circumstances.

My thanks go to sharp-eyed Curmie, who pointed out the error.

Oh—I checked: Ziad Ahmad is real, he’s still an extreme progressive, and he didn’t go to Stanford after all. He graduated from Yale.

The post is below for posterity’s sake.

***

“When it comes to college essays, one teen is showing that a short but powerful message may be the path to success,” gushes NBC News. “Short but powerful”? I ‘d call the stunt by Ziad Ahmed, a teenager from Princeton, New Jersey, something a bit different from that.

In response to a question on his Stanford college application asking “What matters to you, and why?” the teen wrote “#BlackLivesMatter” 100 times. Ahmed then received an acceptance letter from the prestigious California school and is bragging about his successful gambit on social media.

Observations:

1. Assuming that Ahmed would not have been admitted (even if he had solved the mysteries of cold fusion in his spare time) had he written “Make America Great Again” a hundred times in answer to the same question, this incident proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanford is using political preferences to cull its applications. That’s not a stunning revelation, but we now know that the school isn’t even trying for “diversity” of thought, opinion or world view. And, of course, Stanford’s bias is almost certainly the rule, not the exception.

2. “It was important to me that the admissions officers literally hear my impatience for justice and the significance of this issue,” Ahmed told NBC News. “The hashtag conveys my frustration with the failure of judicial system to protect the black community from violence, systemic inequity, and political disenfranchisement.” Oh. But the question didn’t ask him to express his impatience, however, or how “significant” he thinks the phony revelation expressed by the BLM mantra is.  The logic expressed by Ahmed’s statement to NBC shows a serious lack of critical thought, remarkable arrogance even for a teen, and his acceptance of propaganda as fact. So does his “answer” to the Stanford application query.

Yeah, I guess Stanford is right: he’s perfect for its student body. Continue reading →

It Really Is True: A Disturbing Number Of Elected Democrats Don’t Understand Or Support The First Amendment

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Do the voters who elect these opponents of democracy understand the implications of what they are doing in states like California, Massachusetts, Washington and, in this case, New York? I hope not. I sincerely hope the voters are just lazy and stupid, not genuinely in favor of curtailing individual rights.

Once again, a judge has had to step in and remind a government that “Congress shall make no law–– abridging the freedom of speech” as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. New York’s dangerously woke governor Kathy Hochul happily signed into law last December “The Hateful Conduct Law,” entitled “Social media networks; hateful conduct prohibited.” She had personally called for the law, declaring that “[o]nline platforms should be held accountable for allowing hateful and dangerous content to spread on their platforms” because the alleged “lack of oversight, transparency, and accountability of these platforms allows hateful and extremist views to proliferate online.”

It is thought control Democrats and progressives like Hochul want, and prosecuting those who “spread” ideas that their mob calls hateful and dangerous is essential to that goal. The law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(1)(a) defines  “hateful conduct” as

“[T]he use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.”

Naturally, since the “beauty part” of such a law for aspiring totalitarians is that all-wise, ever-virtuous overseers like Hochul can decide any conduct or expression is “hateful” if they want to silence and punish the speaker. “Vilification, humiliation, or incitement” is undefined, but if whatever it is is directed toward an individual or group based on their “race”, “color”, “religion”, “ethnicity”, “national origin”, “disability”, “sex”, “sexual” orientation”, “gender identity” or “gender expression,” then it’s illegal. Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Nikki Haley

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

There was a time when I thought that Nikki Haley had an excellent chance of becoming the first female President. That chance is long gone, and Haley is 100% responsible. Her announcement as a candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination is just another bit of evidence of why she is unfit to be President and never will be one.

Haley has proven herself to be a hypocrite, a cynical opportunist, and devoid of integrity. It’s a shame, given her other skills, talents and experience, and it is certainly true that some have successfully reached the White House with the same nauseating concoction of qualities. Haley, however, is not in a position similar to any of those men.

Anyone who is going to wrest the nomination from Donald Trump—and somebody better—is going to have to do so without so thoroughly alienating Republican voters who still favor the previous POTUS that they would be inclined to skip the 2024 election entirely. For Haley, that metaphorical horse has left the barn and taken a  flight to Borneo. Her flip-flopping regarding Trump is so self-evidently calculated and self-serving, except that it hasn’t served her well anyway.

Haley told the The New York Times in 2016  that she would “not stop until we fight a man that chooses not to disavow the K.K.K. That is not a part of our party. That is not who we are.” Then, when Trump was the nominee, it suddenly was who she was, as Nikki accepted the invitation to serve in Trump’s cabinet in the prestige position as U.N. delegate. Ah, but she did it only out of a “sense of duty.” Haley distinguished herself in the job, and  when the 2020 election loomed, Nikki was all in for Trump, saying, “This president has a record of strength and success.” However, Trump lost, and Haley calculated that the Jan. 6 riot (which CNN still calls “the insurrection”) would end his viability as a candidate. So she condemned him, once she sensed that was the way the wind was blowing. She  told the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting, in her keynote speech, Continue reading →

The Great Stupid, SBA Variant

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Equity! Is there anything it can’t do?

The Small Business Administration, which  administered the Wuhan virus assistance Paycheck Protection Program, now says it will not pursue collection on loans that are  in default as long as the amount owed is $100,000 or less. In fact, most of the 12 million loans given out in 2020 and 2021 were under $100,000.

Hey, free money! Is this a great country or what? May we be so bold as to ask why this largess is being offered to deadbeat businesses?

The SBA claims that the decision to forego collections will ensure “equitable” treatment of  smaller sole proprietor borrowers and larger incorporated borrowers. The SBA reasons that if they pursued collections, the individuals associated with the generally larger incorporated borrowers would hide behind their corporate shield, while individual sole proprietors would be on the hook—-for the money they accepted with a promise to pay it back. Can’t have that! Right? If it’s theoretically possible for rich individuals to duck the loan obligation by having their business declare bankruptcy, it’s unfair to make smaller deadbeats pay back the money they owe. Equity!

The SBA’s Inspector General is not impressed with this logic (he must be a Trump hire), and reported in part,

Continue reading →